CHRISTIAN  BAPTISM 


A 

SERMON, 

PREACHED  IN  THE  LAL  BAZAR  CHAPEL, 

CALCUTTA, 


ON  LORD’s-DAY,  SEPTEMBER  27,  1812, 


PREVIOUS  TO  THE  ADMINISTRATION  OF  THE  ORDINANCE 


or 

BAPTISM. 


With  many  Quotations  from  Poedobaptist  Authors. 


BY  ADONIRAM  JUDSON,  A.  M. 


boston: 

re-printed  and  published  by  LINCOLN  & EDMANDS, 
No.  53  Cornhill. 

1817. 


The  Author  of  the  following  discourse  was,  by  education  and 
profession,  a Pcedobaptist.  During  his  passage  from  America  to 
India,  in  the  spring  of  1812,  he  began  to  doubt  the  truth  of  his 
former  sentiments.  After  his  arrival  in  this  country,  and  before 
he  communicated  the  exercises  of  his  mind  to  any  of  the  Baptist 
denomination,  he  became  convinced,  that  the  immersion  of  a pro- 
fessing believer,  into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  only  Christian  baptism. 

This  discourse  exhibits  the  reasons  of  his  present  belief.  It  is 
committed  to  the  press,  in  compliance  with  the  request  of  some  who 
heard  it,  and  through  the  desire  of  furnishing  his  distant  friends  in 
America,  with  a more  full  and  satisfactory  statement  of  the  reasons 
of  his  change,  than  could  be  made  in  private  communications. 

N.  B.  For  many  of  the  testimonies,  inserted  in  this  discourse, 
the  Author  acknowledges  himself  indebted  to  Mr.  Booth's 
Pcedobaptism  Examiued. 


Calcutta,  Nov.  1812. 


SERMON. 


Matthew  xxviii,  19. 

Baptizing  than  in  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of 

the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 

WHEN  our  Lord  commissioned  his  disciples  to  pro- 
selyte all  nations,  he  instituted  the  sacred  ordinance  of 
baptism. 

The  words  of  the  institution  suggest  two  inquiries ; 
JFhat  is  baptism  ? and,  To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  admin- 
istered? 

I.  JFhat  is  baptism  ? 

Had  tlie  Greek  word  nhich  denotes  the 

principal  action  in  this  ordinance,  been  translated,  in  the 
English  version  of  the  New  Testament,  there  would  pro- 
bably have  been,  among  English  readers,  no  dispute 
concerning  its  import.  Had  either  of  the  English  words, 
wash,  or  sprinkle,  or  immerse,  been  substituted  for  the 
Greek  word,  an  English  reader  would  instantly  con- 
ceive an  appropriate  meaning.  But,  unhappily,  our 
translators  have  retained  the  original  word,  and  con- 
tented themselves  with  merely  changing  its  termination. 
By  this  means,  an  English  reader  is  deprived  of  his 
usual  guide.  There  are  no  otha'  applications  of  the  v/ord, 
in  his  own  language,  from  which  he  can  learn  its  import. 
The  only  expedient,  therefore,  of  which  he  can  avail 
himself,  is  to  ascertain  the  import  of  the  original  tvord : 
and  to  tills  end,  the  following  considerations  may  conduce. 

I.  The  primitive  word  fi-om  which  the 

word  denothig  baptism,  is  derived,  signifies  immersion. 
This  is  as  much  the  appropriate  meaning  of  the  Greek 
word,  as  of  the  English  word,  dip  or  immerse.^  This 

* Dr.  Worcester.  “ Had  it  been  the  intention  of  the  Saviour,  to 
confine  his  followers  to  dipping  or  immersion,  the  proper  word  to  ex- 
press this  ordinance,  would  have  been,  not  /Sx^rli(ef,  but 
Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  Let.  xxii.  p.  125. 


4 


word  is  used,  in  the  New  Testament,  when  the  rich  man 
entreats,  that  Lazarus  may  be  sent  to  dip  the  tip  of  his 
finger  in  water  when  Christ  says,  “ He  it  is,  to  whom 
I shall  give  a sop,  when  I have  dipped  it  ;”t  and  when, 
in  the  Revelation,  Christ  is  represented,  as  clothed  with 
a vesture  dipped  in  blood4  The  inspired  penmen  have 
used  no  other  word,  beside  this  and  its  derivatives,  to 
convey  the  idea  of  immersion  ; nor  have  they  ever  used 
this  ^vord,  in  any  other  sense. 

The  word  denoting  baptism,  is  derived  from  the  ver- 
bal of  this  primitive  word,  by  a change  in  the  termina- 
tion, which,  according  to  an  established  principle  of  the 
Greek  language,  never  affects  the  primary  idea ; but 
^vhen  made  on  words,  expressing  a quality  or  attribute, 
merely  conveys  the  additional  idea  of  causing  or  making. 

Thus  the  Greek  word,  which  signifies  pure,  with  this 
change  of  termination,  signifies  to  make  pure.  The 
Greek  word,  which  signifies  sprinkled,  w'ith  this  change 
of  termination,  signifies  to  make  sprinkled,  or  to  sprinkle. 
And  the  Greek  \vord,  which  signifies  immersed,  witli 
this  change  of  termination,  signifies  to  make  immersed, 
or  to  immerse.^ 

* Luke  xvi.  24.  f John  xiii.  26.  J Rev.  xix.  13. 

II  The  termination  in  Greek  derivatives,  is  precisely  of  the  same 
import,  as  the  termination  fj,  in  English  deri%’atives,  from  the  Latin  fio* 
to  make ; as, 

sanctify,  to  make  holy,  from  sanctus,  holy  ; 
mollify,  to  soften,  from  mollis,  soft,  See. 

On  the  same  principle,  in  Greek  ; 

to  purify,  from  «y*o«,  pure ; 
to  make  <wise,  from  wise, 

to  fll,  from  to  be  full,  &c. 

And  derivatives  are  thus  formed,  not  only  from  adjectives  and  neuter 
verbs,  but  also  from  the  verbals  of  transitive  verbs  ; as, 
ufw,  to  choose  ; aiffjlf,  chosen  ; to  make  chosen,  to  choose  { 

to  show  ; shown  ; ift^»fl^oi,to  make  shown,  to  show; 

Kxttifo),  to  cleanse  ; kx(x^'h,  clean;  tomake  clean,  to  cleanse  ; 

■XBu,  to  drink  ; n-oltf,  drank  ; to  cause  to  be  drank  ; 

to  sprinkle;  fxtlos,  sprinkled ; to  make  sprinkled,  to 

sprinkle. 

And  according  to  the  same  analogy  ; 

fidxlu,  to  immerse ; /3»x%,  immersed;  tomake  immersed, 

to  immerse. 


s 


Accordingly,  that  eminent  Greek  critic,  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, expressly  pronounces  the  primitive  and  the  deriva- 
tive to  be  synonymous.* 

2.  The  word,  nhich  denotes  the  ordinance  of  bap- 
tism, according  to  the  usage  of  Greek  writers,  uniform- 
ly signifies  or  implies  immersion. 

It  is  the  word,  used  in  the  septuagint  translation  of 
the  Old  Testament,  to  express  the  action  of  Naaman, 
when  he  dipped  himself  seven  times  in  Jordan.!  It  is 
frequently  used  by  Josephus,  to  convey  the  idea  of  im- 
mersion ; particularly,  in  his  account  of  the  death  of 
one,  who  was  drowned  in  a pool,  by  order  of  Herod.! 

Numerous  instances  may  be  produced  from  other 
Greek  authors,  to  confirm  this  signification.  || 

Nor  has  any  instance  been  produced,  in  which  the 
word,  literally  applied,  does  not  denote  immersion,  or 
washing  by  immersion.  In  figurative  applications,  this 
word,  like  the  English  words  dip  and  immerse,  and  lik® 
all  other  words,  is  probably  used  with  some  freedom. 
But  should  a few  instances  of  this  kind  be  found,  would 
they  be  sufficient  to  invalidate  the  force  of  evidence,  re- 
sulting from  the  proper  and  general  use  of  the  word  ? 
Wniat  law  ^vill  bind  the  subject,  if  he  is  at  liberty  to  de- 
part from  the  proper  and  general  interpretation  of  the 
principal  term,  and  affix  to  it  a signification,  which  is 
dra\vn  from  some  rare  figurative  application  ? Had 

* Fom  Gospels,  Note  on  Matt.  xx.  22.  See  also,  to  the  same  purpose, 
Beckmannus.  Exercit.  Theolog.  Ex.  xvii,  p.  257  ; Burmannus,  Synops 
Theolog.  Loc.  xliii.  c.  vi.  ^ 2;  Suicerus,  Thesaur.  £cc/w.  sub  voce 
fiu7rh(rftee ; Turrettinus,  Institut.  Loc.  xix.  Quast.  xi.  $ 4 ; Heideg- 
GERUS,  Corpus  Theolog.  Christ.  Loc.  xxv.  ^21. 

! 2 Kings  V.  14. 

! Antiq.  Jud.  L.  xv.  C.  iii.  3.  See  also  Antiq.  Jud.  L-  iv.  C.  iv. 
§ 6",  De  Bell.  Jud.  L.  iv.  C.  iii.  § 3 ; and,  as  quoted  by  Dr.  D.  Scott,  L.  i. 
C.  xxii.  ^ 2 ; L.  i C.  xxvii.  J 1 ; L.  ii.  C xviii.  § 4 ; L.ii.  C.  xx.  ^ 1 ; L. 
iii.  C.  ix.  $ 3 ; L iii.  C.  x.  § 9. 

II  Strabo,  L.  xii.  p.  391.  L.  xiv.  p.  458.  Dio,  xxxvii.  p.  64.  xxxviii. 
p.  84.L.p.  492.  PoLYB.  iii.  C. Ixxii.  V.  C.  xlvii.  Plutarch,  De Superstit. 
Tom.ii.Op.f.l66.  Di0D0RusSicuLus,L.i. C.xxxvi.  C.  Ixxiii.  Heliodo- 
Rus,  L.v.p.  197.  Po&PHYMUS,  De%^e,p.282.  .SisCHYLUS, 

Vinct.  p.  53. 


6 


the  rite  of  baptism  been  prescribed  in  the  English  lan- 
guage, and  the  word  dip  been  used  to  express  the  ac- 
tion, could  we  have  entertained  a doubt  concerning  the 
meaning?  And  in  what  light  should  we  regard  an  at- 
tempt to  prove,  that  it  had  no  definite  import,  but  sig- 
nified sprinkling,  or  any  kind  of  wetting,  because  Dr. 
Johnson  defines  the  word,  1.  To  immerge ; 2.  To  moist- 
en, to  wet  ; and  in  proof  of  the  latter  meaning,  cites  these 
lines  of  Milton : 

“ And  tho’  not  mortal,  yet  a ctld  shuddering  dew 
Dips  me  all  o’er  ?” 

If  this  principle  of  interpretation  be  allowed,  it  will 
completely  destroy  the  force  of  every  command. 

The  following  testimonies,  concerning  the  import  of 
the  word  are  given  by  eminent  authors,  who 

were  professed  Pcedobaptists  ; and  whose  concessions, 
therefore,  on  this  subject,  could  not  have  been  influenc- 
ed by  attacliment  to  their  religious  system,  but  must 
have  resulted  from  a conviction  of  truth  alone. 

BuDDiEus.  “ The  words  /3x7rV^ui>  and  are 

not  to  be  interpreted  of  aspersion,  but  always  of  im- 
mersion.”^ 

Alstedius.  “ to  baptize,  signifies  only  to 
immerse,  not  to  wash,  except  by  consequence.”! 

J.  J.  Wetstenius.  “To  baptize  is  to  plunge,  to 
dip.  The  body,  or  part  of  the  body,  being  under  water, 
is  said  to  be  baptized.”f 

J.  Altingius.  “ For  baptism  is  immersion,  when 
the  whole  body  is  immcrged  ; but  the  term  baptism  is  nev- 
er used  concerning  aspersion. ”|| 

Beza.  “ Christ  commanded  us  to  be  baptized,  by 
which  word,  it  is  certain,  immersion  is  signified. — Nor 
does  fix-xUt^uD  signify  to  wash,  except  by  consequence ; 
for  it  properly  signifies  to  immerse  for  the  sake  of  dye- 
ing.— To  be  bajitized  in  water,  signifies  wo  other,  tlian 

* Tbeolog.  Dogmat.  L.  v.  C.  i.  § 5.  f Lexicon  Tbeolog.  C.  xii.  p.  221. 

! Comment,  ad  M.Wt.  Hi.  fi.  ||  Comment,  ad  Hcb-  ix.  10. 


7 

% 

to  be  immersed  in  water,  which  is  the  external  ceremo- 
ny of  biqjtism.”* * * § 

Luther.  “ The  term  baptism  is  a Greek  word.  It 
may  be  rendered  immersion,  as  when  we  plunge  some- 
thing in  water,  that  it  may  be  entirely  covered  w ith  wa- 
ter. And  though  that  custom  is  now  abolished  among 
the  generality  (for  even  children  are  not  entirely  im- 
mersed, but  only  liave  a little  water  poured  on  them ;) 
nevertheless,  tliey  ought  to  be  completely  immersed, 
and  immediately  drawn  out.  For  tJie  etymology  of  the 
ivord  evidently  requires  tV.”f 

Casaubon.  “This  was  the  rite  of  baptizing,  that 
persons  were  plunged  into  the  water ; which  the  very 
word  to  baptize^  sufficiently  declares'' \ 

Cattenburgh.  “In  baptism  the  whole  body  is  or- 
dered to  be  immersed.”i| 

Keckerm  ANNUS.  “We  cannot  deny,  that  the  first 
institution  of  baptism,  consisted  in  immersion,  and  not 
\ sprinkling. 

Salmasius.it  “Thus  Novatus,  when  sick,  receiv- 
ed baptism,  being  besprinkled^  not  /3x7r\i(rSui,  bap- 

tized. Euseb.  vi.  Hist.  C.  xliii.”** 

Dr.  Campbell.  “The  word  both  in  sa- 

cred authors,  and  in  classical,  signifies  to  dip,  to  plunge, 
to  immerse ; and  w'as  rendered  by  TertuUian,  the  oldest 
of  the  Latin  fatliers,  tingere,  tlie  term  used  for  dyeing 
cloth,  which  was  by  immersion.  It  is  always  constru- 
ed suitably  to  this  meaning.  Thus  it  is  g» 

itfixtn.  But  I should  not  lay  much  stress  on  the  pre- 
position n,  which,  answering  to  the  Hebrew  a,  may 

* Epiit.  ii.  ad  Thom.  T'llium.  Annot.  in  Marc.  vii.  4,  and  Act.  xix.  3. 

f Opera,  Tom.  i.  p.  72.  Wit.  1582. 

J Annot.inMsSX. iii.  6.  ||  Spicileg.  Theolog. L.  iv.  C.  Ixiv.  Sect.  ii.  § 22. 

§ System.  Theolog.  L.  iii.  C.  viii.  p.  369. 

5T  For  the  character  of  Salmasius,  “ a man  of  very  extraordinary  abil- 
ities, and  profound  erudition,"  see  the  Panoplist  for  Sept.  1808,  Art.  Sal- 
masius.  Vol.  i.  New  Series,  p 148. 

**  Apud  Witsii.  (Ecoq.  Feed.  L.  iv.  C.  xvi.  $ 13. 


denote  v)ith^  as  well  as  did  not  the  whole  phraseol- 
ogy, in  regard  to  this  ceremony,  concur  in  evincing 
the  same  thing. — Had  been  here  employed  in 

the  sense  of  1 sprinkle  ('which,  as  far  as  I know, 
it  never  is,  in  any  use,  sacred  or  classical,)  the  expression 
would  doubtless  have  been,”  &c.* — “ When,  therefore, 
the  Greek  w’ord  is  adopted,  I may  say,  rather 

tlian  translated  into  modern  languages,  the  mode  of  con- 
struction ought  to  be  preserved,  so  far  as  may  conduce 
to  suggest  its  original  import.  It  is  to  be  regretted, 
that  we  have  so  much  evidence,  that  even  good  and 
leari  icd  men  allo^v  their  judgments  to  be  warped,  by  the 
sentiments  and  customs  of  the  sect  which  they  prefer. 
The  true  partizan,  of  whatever  denomination,  alw'ays  in- 
clines to  correct  the  diction  of  the  Spirit,  by  that  of  the 
party.  ”t 

3.  There  are  no  instances,  in  the  New  Testament, 
which  require  us  to  depart  from  the  etymological  and  es- 
tablished interpretation  of  the  w'ord. 

We  must  believe,  that  the  writers  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, used  words,  according  to  tlieir  usual  acceptation, 
in  the  Greek  language,  unless  tlie  connexion  requires 
some  other  interpretation.  If  w'e  suppose,  tliat  they 
used  words  in  a manner  different  from  common,  estab- 
lished use,  w'ithout  giving  sufficient  intimation,  cither 
expressly,  or  by  the  obvious  scope  of  tlie  passage,  we 
must  give  up  our  only  guide  to  the  meaning  of  any 
word,  or  charge  them  with  a design  of  misleading. 
They  eertainly  knew  that  their  readers  ^vould  natural- 
ly and  necessarily  interpret  every  word  in  tlie  usual 
way,  imless  taught  differently  by  tlie  connexion. 

* The  two  verbs,  rendered  miash,  in  the  English  translation,  are  differ- 
ent  in  the  original.  The  first  is  ri-^vrJcn,  properly  translated  twasb; 
the  second  is  nuhich  limits  us  to  a particular  mode  of  wash- 
ing ; for  denotes  to  plunge,  to  dip — says  that 

excellent  critic  (Wetstein)  “ cst  manus  aquoc  immergerc,  nyelurixi 
iranibus  affundcre.”  Note  on  Mark  vii.  3,  4. 

f Four  Gospels,  Note  on  Matt.  iii.  11. 


9 


Let  us  examine  those  instances,  in  which  it  has  l^ecn 
supposed,  that  the  connexion  renders  tlni  idea  of  im- 
mersion inadmissible. 

It  is  said,  that  we  cannot  suppose,  that  tlie  washings 
(according  to  the  Greek  baptisms)  of  cups,  and  pots,  and 
brazen  vessels,  and  tables,  or  those  ablutions  which  the 
Jews  practised  before  eating,  were  all  done  l)y  immer- 
sion.* 

With  regard  to  the  former,  it  must  be  remembered, 
that  the  Jews  were  commanded,  in  their  law,  to  cleanse 
unclean  vessels  by  immersing  them  : “ whether  it  be  any 
vessel  of  wood,  or  nuinent,  or  skin,  or  sack,  whatsoever 
vessel  it  be,  wherein  any  work  is  done,  it  must  be  put 
into  waterJ*^\  What  is  more  probable,  than  that  they 
abused  the  first  institution  of  this  ceremony,  by  super- 
stitiously  immersing  a variety  of  articles,  not  included  in 
the  divine  command  ? 

That  the  Jews,  on  returning  from  market,  immersed 
tliemselves  before  eating,  may  appear  improbable  to  an 
inhabitant  of  the  north  of  Europe  or  America ; but  not 
to  you,  my  brethren,  who  are  acquainted  with  the  cus- 
toms of  these  eastern  countries,  and  witness  the  fre- 
quent ceremonial  immersion  of  the  natives. 

But  that  these  baptisms  were  really  immersions,  and, 
therefore,  that  the  use  of  the  word,  in  these  instances, 
instead  of  weakening,  must  confirm  the  belief,  that  it 
always  means  immersion,  appears  from  the  testimonies 
of  the  learned  Scaliger,  and  an  eminent  Jewish  Rabbi. 

Sc  ALICE  R.  “The  more  superstitious  part  of  them” 
(the  Jews,)  “ every  day,  before  they  sat  down  to  meat, 
dipped  the  whole  body.  Hence  the  Pharisees’  admira- 
tion at  Christ,  Luke  xi.  38.”f; 

Maimonides.  “ Wherever  in  the  law,  washing  of 
the  flesh,  or  of  the  clothes,  is  mentioned,  it  means 
nothing  else,  than  the  dipping  of  the  whole  body  in  a la- 

♦ Mark  vii.  3,  4.  f Lev.  xi.  32.  $ De  Emend.  Tempi.  L.  vi.  p.  771. 

B 


10 


ver ; for  if  any  man  dips  himself  all  over,  except  the  tip 
of  his  little  finger,  he  is  still  in  his  uncleanness.”* 

“ A bed  that  is  wholly  defiled,  if  a man  dips  it  part 
by  part,  it  is  pure.”t 

It  is  said,  that  the  three  thousand,  converted  on  the 
day  of  pcntecost,  could  not  have  been  baptized  by  im- 
mersion the  same  day. 

Nor  is  it  recorded,  that  they  were  baptized  the  same 
day,  but  that  they  were  added  to  the  disciples.  1:  On  the 
supposition,  however,  that  they  were  all  baptized  the 
same  day,  was  it  impossible  for  the  twelve,  assisted  by 
the  seventy,  and  perhaps  others,  to  administer  the  or- 
dinance by  immersion  In  the  preceding  chapter,  we 
are  informed,  that  the  number  of  disciples  together,  was 
one  hundred  and  twenty. 

Another  objection  is  thus  stated : “ At  dead  of  night, 
in  the  city  of  Philippi,  the  jailer  and  all  his,  w'ere  bap- 
tized by  Paul  and  Silas.  II  Is  it  to  be  believed,  that,  in 
a city  guarded  by  Roman  centinels,  the  prisoners,  Paul 
and  Silas,  when  their  jailer  had  received  a strict  charge, 
at  his  peril,  to  keep  them  safely,  would,  nevertheless, 
take  him  and  his  family  abroad,  in  the  night,  just  after 
the  whole  city  had  been  roused  by  an  earthquake,  and  go 
to  a pond,  or  a river,  to  baptize  them  by  immersion  ?”1T 

This  case  can  present  no  difficulty  to  the  minds  of  any 
of  you,  my  brethren,  who  may  have  been  within  the 
yard  of  the  prison  in  this  city,  or  are  acquainted  with 
the  fact,  that  prison-yards,  in  the  east,  as  well  as  the 
yards  and  gardens  of  private  houses,  are  usually  fur- 
nished with  tanks  of  water. 

* Hilchot.  Mikvaol,  C.  i.  Sect.  ii. 

t Hilchot.  Celtm.  C.  xxvi.  Sect.  xiv.  See  also,  to  the  same  purpose, 
Ikenius,  Antiq.  Hehraicx,  Pars  i.  C.  xviii.  $ 9;  and  Mr. Stackhouse, 
Hist,  of  the  Bible,  B.  viii.  C.  i.  p.  1234. 

J Acts  ii.  41. 

J Sec  Venemce,  Hist.  Eccles.  Sccul.  i.  § 138 ; and  Buodcei  Theolog. 
Dogmat.  L.  v.  C.  i.  § 5. 

II  Acts  xvi.  23 — 34. 

^ Dr.  Worcester’s  Lett,  t*  Dr.  BalJivin,  Let.  xxii.  p.  127. 


11 


It  is  sjud  again,  with  reference  to  the  rites  of  cleansing, 
under  the  Jewish  dispensation,  thar,  “ by  the  apostle 
to  the  Hebrews,*  these  various  purifications,  or  sprink- 
lings, are  expressly  called  diverse  bap- 

tisnisy\ 

This  might  be  urged  with  some  plausibility,  had  no 
immersions  been  prescribed  in  the  Jewish  ritual.  Bu^ 
since  these  were  numerous,  as  will  appear,  on  examin- 
ing the  Lcvitical  law,l:  the  application  of  the  word,  by 
tlie  apostle  Paul,  affords  no  reason  for  ascribing  to  it 
any  other,  beside  its  usual  import.^ 

Another  instance  supposed  to  be  objectionable,  may 
be  thus  stated.  Christ  promised  to  baptize  his  disci- 
ples with  the  Holy  Spirit  ;||  and  on  the  day  of  pentecost, 
fulfilled  his  promise  by  pouring  out  the  Spirit  upon 
them.**  Here,  it  is  said,  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit 
is  compatible,  with  the  supposition,  that  sprinkling  or 
pouring  is  baptism,  but  not  witli  the  supposition,  that 
immersion  only  is  baptism. 

It  must  be  remembered,  that  the  literal  meaning  of 
a word  is  not  to  be  ascertained  from  a figurative  appli- 
cation. If  the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  proves  that 
sprinkling  or  pouring  is  baptism,  their  being  filled  with 
tlie  Spirit  proves  that  filling  is  baptism. 

The  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  upon  them  is,  howet^er, 
perfectly  consistent  with  the  promise  of  Christ,  that  he 
would  immerse  them  in  the  Spirit.  This  was  the  means 
by  which  he  performed  his  promise.  He  poured  out 
the  Spirit  upon  them  to  such  a degree,  that  they  were 
immersed,  according  to  his  promise,  and  even  filled  with 
the  Spirit.  This  is  confirmed  by  the  symbol  of  the  rush- 

* Heb  ix.  10. 

f Dr.  WoRC  ester’s  Letters  to  Dr.  Bald<iuin,  Let.  xxil.  p.  128. 

f See  among  other  instances,  Lev.  xv.  xvi.  26,  28.  Num.  xix.  7,  S. 

$ J Altingius.  “Washings,  the  apostle  calls  diverse  baptisms: 
that  is,  various  immersions. — Those  Jewish  washings  were  manifold.” 
Comment,  ad  Heb.  ix.  10. 

II  Acts  i.  5. 


**  Acts  ii.  l~4  and  S3. 


12 


ing,  mighty  wind,  which  is  used  to  denote  the  Holy  Spir- 
it. It  filled  all  the  house,  where  they  were  a sitting.* 

The  baptism  of  the  Israelites  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the 
sea,  mentioned  by  the  apostle  Paul,t  has  been  thought 
incompatible  with  the  idea  of  immersion. 

The  apostle,  in  the  context,  informs  us  how  they  were 
baptized,  not  by  being  sprinkled  or  washed,  but  by  be- 
ing under  the  cloud,  and  by  passing  through  the  sea.  Is 
there  any  impropriety  in  representing  their  situation, 
with  die  sea  on  each  side,  and  the  cloud  covering  diem, 
as  an  immersion  in  the  cloud,  and  in  the  sea  ? Is  not  this 
the  natural,  obvious  import  of  the  passage?  As  to  the 
supposition,  that  they  were  sprinkled  with  spray  from 
the  sea,  and  rain  from  the  cloud,  it  is  made  without 
evidence  (the  eighth  and  ninth  verses  of  the  sixty-eighth 
Psalm  not  alluding  to  this  event, :]:)  and  appears  too 
fanciful,  and  too  evidently  contrived  for  the  occasion, 
to  require  farther  remark.  |1 

* Abp.  Tillotson.  “ It  filled  all  the  house.  This  is  that  which  our 
Saviour  calls,  baptizing  with  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  that  they,  who  sat  in 
the  house,  were,  as  it  were,  immersed  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  as  they  who  were 
buried  with  water,  were  overwhelmed,  or  covered  all  over  with  water, 
which  is  the  proper  notion  of  baptism.”  Sermons,  Serm.  cxcvii.  See 
also,  to  the  samepurpose,  Cyril,  Cateches.  xvii.  $ 8, 10;  Gurtlerus, 
Institut.  Theolog,  C.  xxxiii ; Ikenius,  Dissert.  Philolog.T heolog.  Dissert, 
xix.  p.  325. ; Le  Clerc,  Remarques  sur  Nouv.  Test,  a Matt.  iii.  1 ; 
Casaubon,  in  Act.  i.  5 ; Mr.  Leigh,  Annot.  on  Matt.  iii.  11  j Bp.  Hop- 
kins, Works,  p.  519  ; Bp.  Reynolds,  Works,  p.  226. 
f 1 Cor.  X.  1,  2. 

J See  Dr.  Tii.  Scott’s  Note  on  Ps.  Ixviii.  9. 

II  WiTSius.  “ilow  were  the  Israelites  baptized  in  the  cloud, 
and  in  tlie  sea,  seeing  they  were  neither  immersed  in  the  sea,  nor 
wetted  by  the  cloud  ? It  is  to  be  considered,  that  the  apostle  here 
uses  the  term  baptism  in  a figurative  sense. — The  cloud  hung 
over  their  heads;  and  so  the  water  is  over  those  that  are  baptized. 
The  sea  surrounded  them  on  each  side  ; and  so  the  water,  in  regard 
to  those  that  are  baptized.”  (Econ.  I'oed.  L.  iv.  C.  x.  § 11.  See 
also,  to  the  same  juirpose,  Turreittinvs,  Disput.  de  Bap.  Nubis 
et  Maris,  § 24  ; Sir  Norton  Knatciibui.l,  Animad.  in  Lib.  Noo, 
Test,  ad  I Pot.  iii.  20,  21  ; Venema,  Dissert.  Sac.  L.  ii.  C.  xiv. 
^9 — 11  ; Grotius,  in  1 Cor.  x,  2 ; Braonius,  Doctrina  Foed. 
Loc.  xviii.  C.  X.  § 7 ; Mr.  Gataker,  Adversar.  Misccl.  Cup.  iv; 
CAMERo,in  loc.  Benoelius,  Gnomon,  in  loc.  Marckios,  Bib. 
Exercitat.  Ex.  viii.  ||  12;  Mr.  Poor’s  Continuators,  Dr.  Ham- 
mond and  Dr.  WiliTBY,  on  the  place. 


13 


W’^e  have  now  considered  tlie  principal  instances,  in 
the  New  Testament,  w hich  kive  been  thought  to  attach 
some  other  idea,  beside  that  of  immersion,  to  the  term 
denoting  baptism  ; and  ccrUiinly  discover  no  sufficient 
reason  for  departing  from  tlic  etymological  and  estab- 
lished interpretation. 

4.  The  circumstances  attending  the  instances  of  bap- 
tism, recorded  in  tlic  New  Testament,  plainly  indicate 
immersion. 

John  baptized  in  the  river  Jordan*  and  in  Enon,  be- 
cause there  was  mueh  water  there.\  Christ  W'as  baptized 
in  Jordan^  and  after  the  ordinance,  came  up  out  of  the 
water.X  Philip  and  the  eunuch  went  down  both  into  the 
water,  and  after  "baptism,  came  up  out  of  the  water. ^ The 
plirase,  went  into  the  water,  does  not,  indeed,  imply  in 
itself,  that  the  subjects  were  immersed.  It  is  one  thing^ 
to  go  into  the  w’ater ; and  it  is  another  thing,  to  be  im- 
mersed. But  the  phrase  implies  by  consequence,  that 
the  subjects  were  immersed.  For  it  cannot  be  suppos, 
ed,  that  John  and  the  primitive  disciples  resorted  to 
rivers,  and  went  into  the  water,  for  the  purpose  of 
pouring  or  sprinkling.  Do  the  advocates  of  pouring 
or  sprinkling  find  this  the  most  convenient  mode  of  ad- 
ministering the  ordinance? 

5.  The  idea  of  immersion  is  the  only  one,  which  will 
suit  all  the  various  connexions,  in  wliich  the  word  is 
used  in  the  New  Testament. 

The  word  certainly  has  some  meaning,  whether  more 
limited,  or  more  general ; and  when  used  to  denote  the 
ordinance  of  baptism,  certainly  has  one  uniform  mean- 
ing, which  is  applicable  in  every  instance.  What  is 
this  meaning? 

Is  it  sprinkling  ? We  must  tlien  read.  And  they  were 
all  sprinkled  of  him  in  the  river  Jordan  Buried  with 
him  by  sprinkling  ;*I[  They  were  all  sprinkled  unto  Mo- 
ses, in  the  cloud  and  in  the  sea.^* 

• Mark  i.  5.  f John  iii.  23.  J Mark  i.  9,  1 0.  ||  Acts  viii.  38, 39. 

$ Mark  i.  5.  ^ Rom.  vi,  4.  **  i Cor.  x.  2. 


14 


Is  it  washing?  We  must  then  read,  He  shall  wash 
you  with  (Greek,  in)  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire  Arise 
and  be  washed,  and  wash  away  thy  sins  ;f  So  many  of 
us,  as  were  washed  into  Jesus  Christ,  were  washed  into 
his  death 4 

The  idea  of  immersion  always  suits  the  connexion  in 
which  the  word  is  used  ; or,  in  the  words  of  Dr.  Camp- 
bell, the  word  “ is  always  construed  suitably  to  this  mean- 
ing ^ Thus  we  may  read,  with  propriety  of  sentiment 
and  expression.  And  they  were  all  immersed  of  him  in 
the  river  Jordan  ; Buried  with  him  by  immersion  ; They 
were  all  immersed  unto  Moses,  in  the  cloud  and  in  the 
sea  ; He  shall  immerse  you  in  the  Holy  Ghost  and  fire ; 
Arise  and  be  immersed,  and  wash  away  thy  sins ; So 
many  of  us,  as  were  immersed  into  Jesus  Christ,  u'ere 
immersed  into  his  death. 

6.  The  Greek  people  certainly  understand  their  own 
native  language,  better  than  any  foreigners.  We  must, 
therefore,  believe,  that  their  practice,  whatever  it  be, 
affords  a correct  and  indisputable  interpretation  of  the 
Greek  word.  Notv,  from  the  first  introduction  of  the 
gospel,  to  the  present  time,  they  have  invariably  prac- 
tised immersion.  This  is  true,  not  only  of  the  Greek 
people,  but  of  the  whole  Greek  church,  from  the  south- 
ern provinces  of  Greece,  to  the  northern  extremity  of 
the  Russian  empire,  a church,  which,  in  point  of  ter- 
ritory and  population,  embraces  nearly  one  half  of 
Christendom. 

Deylingius.  “The  Greeks  retain  the  rite  of  im- 
mersion to  this  day,  as  Jeremiah,  tlie  patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople declares.  ”11 

Mr.  Chambers.  “In  the  primitive  times,  this  cer- 
emony was  performed  by  immersion  ; as  it  is  to  tliis 
day,  in  the  oriental  churches,  according  to  the  original 
signification  of  the  word.”§ 

♦Matt.iii.il.  f Acts  xxii.  IG-  J Rom- iv.  3- 

||  De  Prudent.  Pattoral.  P.irs.  iii.  C.  iii.  § 26. 

§ Cjclepeedia,  Art.  Baptitm.  Edit.  Ttb. 


15 


Dr.  Wall.  “ All  the  Christians  in  Asia,  all  in  Africa, 
and  about  one  third  part  of  Europe,  are  of  the  last  sort” 
(practise  immersion,)  “ in  which  third  part  of  Europe, 
arc  comprehended  the  Christians  of  Graecia,  Thricia, 
Scrvia,  Bulgaria,  Rascia,  WalLichia,  Moldavia,  Rus- 
sia, Nigra,  and  so  on ; and  even  the  Muscovites,  who, 
if  coldness  of  the  country  will  excuse,  might  plead  for 
a dispensation  with  the  most  reason  of  any.” — “ The 
Greek  church,  in  all  the  branches  of  it,  does  still  use 
immersion  ; and  they  hardly  count  a child,  except  in  case 
of  sickness,  well  baptized  without  it.”* 

7.  Not  only  all  the  branches  of  tlic  Greek  church,  but 
the  whole  Christian  world,  for  the  space  of  thirteen  hun- 
dred years,  practised  immersion,  as  the  only  valid  bap- 
tism. Sprinkling  or  pouring  was  never  tolerated,  ex- 
cept in  case  of  dangerous  sickness,  or  want  of  a sufficient 
quantity  of  water;  and  even  then,  the  validity  of  tlie 
application  was  always  disputed.  Those  who  were  thus 
baptized  by  pouring,  were  called  clinics,  not  Christians, 
and  were  prohibited  the  priesthood.  Nev^er,  by  any 
Christians,  in  any  age,  was  sprinkling  or  pouring  allow- 
ed in  common  cases,  until  the  council  of  Ravenna,  as- 
sembled by  the  pope,  in  the  year  thirteen  hundred  and 
eleven,  declared  immersion  or  pouring  to  be  indifferent- 
From  tliat  time,  the  latter  gradually  came  into  gen- 
eral use.  It  was  not,  however,  admitted  into  England, 
till  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth  century^  and  not  sanc- 
tioned, till  the  middle  of  the  seventeenth ; when  the 
Westminster  assembly  decided,  that  “ dipping  of  tlie 
person  in  water,  is  not  necessary  ; but  baptism  is  rightly 
administered,  by  pouring  or  sprinkling  water  upon  the 
person.”!  “ This  decision,  however,  was  carried  by 
a majority  of  one,  there  being  twenty -Jive  for  it,  and  twen- 
ty-four against 

As  the  truth  of  these  assertions,  concerning  the  prac- 
tice of  the  church,  must  be  established  by  testimony, 

• Hitt,  of  Inf.  Bap,  Part.  ii.  C.  ix.  p.  447. 

f Confettion,  Chap.  xxTiii,  3.  t HALBAh's’s  Heatons,  Chap.  i.  p.  17. 


16 


independently  of  argumentation,  I hope  to  be  excused 
for  the  number  and  length  of  the  following  quotations, 
from  Poedobaptist  authors  of  acknowledged  authority. 

Grotius.  “That  baptism  used  to  be  performed  by 
immersion,  and  not  by  pouring,  appears  both  from  the 
proper  signification  of  the  word,  and  the  places  chosen 
for  the  administration  of  the  rite,  John  iii.  23  ; Acts  viii, 
38 ; and  also  from  the  many  allusions  of  the  apostles, 
which  cannot  be  referred  to  sprinkling,  Rom.  vi.  3,  4 ; 
Col.  ii.  12.”* 

ViTRiNCA.  “The  act  of  baptizing  is  the  immersion 
of  believers  in  water.  This  expresses  the  force  of  the 
word.  Thus  also  it  was  performed  by  Christ  and  the 
apostles.  ”t 

CuRCELLceus.  “ Baptism  was  performed  by  plunging 
the  whole  body  into  water,  and  not  by  sprinkling  a few 
drops,  as  is  now  the  practice. — Nor  did  the  disciples, 
that  were  sent  out  by  Christ,  administer  baptism  after- 
wards, in  any  other  way.^^i 

Westminster  Assembly  of  Divines.  “ Buried 
with  him  by  baptism.  See  Col.  ii.  12.  In  this  plirase,  the 
apostle  seemeth  to  allude  to  the  ancient  manner  of  bap- 
tism, which  was  to  dip  the  parties  baptized,  and,  as  it 
were,  to  bury  them  under  the  water.  ”|| 

Calvin.  “ From  these  words,  John  iii.  23,  it  may 
be  inferred,  that  baptism  was  administered  by  John  and 
Christ,  by  plunging  the  whole  body  under  water. — 
Here  we  perceive  how  baptism  was  administered  among 
the  ancients ; for  they  immersed  the  whole  body  in 
w'ater.”^ 

Mr.  Bailey.  “ Baptism,  in  strictness  of  speech,  is  that 
kind  of  ablution  or  washing,  which  consists  in  dipping  ; 

• Apud  Poll  Synops.  ad  XIatt.  ill.  6. 

■}•  Aphorismi.  Sana,  Theolog.  Aph.  834. 

+ Relig.  Christ  Institut.  L.  v.  C.  ii. 

II  Annol.  on  Rom.  vi.  4.  See  also,  to  the  same  purpose  Bp. 
Pkarce,  Note  on  I Cor.  xv.  29;  and  Bp.  BURNET> 
xxxix.  Articles,  p.  374. 

§ In  Joan.  iii.  23.  Comment,  in  Act  viii.  38. 


17 


and  when  applied  to  the  Christian  institution,  so  called, 
it  was  used  by  the  primitive  Christians,  in  no  other  sense, 
than  that  of  dipping,  as  the  learned  Grotius  and  Casau- 
bon  well  observe.”* 

Dr.  Wall.!  “We  should  not  know  by  these  ac- 
counts” (John  iii.  23  ; Mark  i.  5 ; Acts  viii.  38,)  “ wheth- 
er the  \vhole  body  of  the  baptized  was  put  under  water, 
head  and  all,  were  it  not  for  two  later  proofs,  which  seem 
to  me  to  put  it  out  of  question.  One,  that  St.  Paul  does 
twice,  in  an  allusive  way  of  speaking,  call  baptism  a 
burial,  which  allusion  is  not  so  proper,  if  we  conceive 
them  to  have  gone  into  the  water,  only  up  to  the  arm- 
pits,  &c.  as  it  is,  if  their  uhole  body  was  immersed. 
The  other,  the  custom  of  the  near  succeeding  times. — As 
for  sprinkling,  I say,  as  Mr.  Blake,  at  its  first  coming 
up  in  England,  “ Let  them  defend  it,  that  use  it."X 

Mr.  Bingham.  “There  are  a great  many  passages, 
in  the  epistles  of  St.  Paul,  which  plainly  refer  to  this 
custom”  (immersion.)  “ As  this  was  the  original  apostolic- 
al practice  ; so  it  continued  to  be  the  universal  practice 
of  the  church,  for  many  ages,  upon  the  same  symboliciJ 
reasons,  as  it  was  first  used  by  the  apostles. — It  ap- 
pears from  Epiphanius  and  others,  that  almost  all  her- 
etics, who  retained  any  baptism,  retained  immersion 
also. — The  only  heretics,  against  whom  this  charge” 
(of  not  baptizing  by  a total  immersion)  “ is  brought, 
were  the  Eunomians,  a branch  of  the  Arians.”  § 

Dr.  Towerson.  “ But,  therefore,  as  there  is  so  much 
the  more  reason,  to  represent  the  rite  of  immersion,  as 
the  only  legitimate  rite  of  baptism,  because  the  only  one, 

* Dictionary,  Dr.  Scott’s  Edit.  1772. 

•f  In  a general  convocation  of  the  English  clergy,  Feb.  9,  1706, 
it  was  ordered,  “ that  the  thanks  of  this  h use  be  given  to  Mr. 
Wall,  vicar  of  Shoreham  in  Kent,  for  the  learned  and  excellent 
book  he  hath  lately  written,  concerning  infant  baptism.”  In  Dr. 
Baldwin’s  Bap,  of  Believers  only.  Part.  ii.  Sect,  iv,  p.  91. 

X Def.  of  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  131,  140. 

§ Origines  Eccles.  B.  xi.  C.  xi. 

c 


18 


that  can  answer  the  ends  of  its  institution,  and  those 
things  which  were  to  be  signified  by  it  ; so  especially, 
if  f as  is  well  know7i,  and  undoubtedly  of  great  force)  the 
general  practice  of  the  primitive  church  was  agreeable 
thereto,  and  the  practice  of  the  Greek  church,  to  this 
very  day.  For  who  can  think,  either  the  one,  or  the 
other,  would  have  been  so  tenacious  of  so  troublesome 
a rite,  were  it  not,  that  they  were  well  assured,  as  they 
of  the  primiti\  e church  might  very  well  be,  of  its  being 
the  only  instituted  and  legitimate  one  V’* 

Venema.  “It  is  without  controversy,  that  baptism 
in  the  primitive  church,  was  administered  by  immer- 
sion into  water,  and  not  by  sprinkling. — The  essential 
act  of  baptizing,  in  the  second  century,  consisted,  not  in 
sprinkling,  but  in  immersion  into  w'ater,  in  the  name 
of  each  person  in  the  Trinity.  Concerning  immer- 
sion, the  words  and  phrases  that  are  used,  sufficiently 
testify  ; and  that  it  was  performed  in  a river,  a pool,  gc 
a fountain. — To  the  essential  rites  of  baptism,  in  the 
third  centiiiy",  pertained  immersion,  and  not  aspersion, 
except  in  cases  of  necessity,  and  it  ivas  accounted  a half- 
perfect baptism. — Immersion,  in  the  fourth  centurj',  was 
one  of  those  acts,  that  w’ere  considered  as  essential  to 
baptism  ; — nevertheless,  aspersion  w’as  used  in  the  last 
moments  of  life,  on  such  as  were  called  clinics, — and  also, 
where  there  was  not  a sufficient  quantity  of  water.”! 
Salmasius.  “The  ancients  did  not  baptize,  odicr- 
ise  than  by  immersion,  either  once  or  thrice  ; except 
clinics,  or  persons  confined  to  their  Ix^ds,  who  were 
baptized  in  a manner  of  which  they  were  capable  ; not 
in  the  entire  laver,  as  those  who  plunge  the  head  under 
water ; but  the  whole  body  had  water  poured  upon  it. 
(Cypr.  iv.  Epist.  vii.)  Thus  Novatus,  when  sick,  re- 
ceived baptism,  being  besprinkled^  not  fixxlKrtuf^ 

baptized.  Euseb.  vi.  Hist.  C.  xliii.”t 

* Of  the  Sacram.  of  Bap.  Part.  iii.  p.  58. 

f Hist.  Ecclcs.  Secul.  i.  § 138  ; Secul.  ii.  § 100  ; Secul.  iii,  § 51  ; 
Scctil.  iv.  1 JO. 

X Apiid  VVitsii  CEcon.  Feed.  L.  iv.  C.  xvi.  § 13. 


19 


Bp.  Taylor.  “ I'lic  custom  of  the  ancient  churches 
u’as  not  sprinkling,  but  immersion ; in  pursuance  of 
the  sense  of  the  word  (baptize)  in  the  commandment, 
and  the  example  of  our  blessed  Saviour.  Now  this 
was  of  so  sacred  account  in  their  esteem,  that  they  did 
not  account  it  lawful  to  receive  him  into  the  clcrgj%  who 
had  been  only  sprinkled  in  his  baptism,  as  we  learn 
from  the  epistle  of  Cornelius  to  Fabius  of  Antioch,  apud 
Euseb.  L.  vi.  C.  xliii. — It  was  a formal  and  solemn 
question,  made  by  Magnus  to  Cyprian,  whether  they 
are  to  be  esteemed  right  Christians,  who  were  only 
sprinkled  with  water,  and  not  washed  or  dipped.”* 

Cypria  n.  f In  reply  to  the  question  of  Magnus)  “ In 
the  saving  sacraments,  when  necessity  obliges,  and  God 
grants  his  indulgence,  abridgments  of  divine  things  will 
confer  the  whole  on  believers.”! 

Dr.  Wall.  “ Anno  Dom.  251,  Novatian  was,  by  one 
party  of  the  ckrgy  and  people  of  Rome,  chosen  bishop 
of  that  church,  in  a schismatical  way,  and  in  opposition 
to  Cornelius,  ^vho  had  been  before  chosen  by  the  ma- 
jor part,  and  was  already  ordained.  Cornelius  does, 
in  a letter  to  Fabius,  bishop  of  Antioch,  vindicate  his 
right,  and  shews  that  Novatian  came  not  canonical!}"  to 
his  orders  of  priesthood,  much  less  was  he  capable  of 
being  chosen  bishop  ; for  that  all  the  clergy,  and  a 
great  many  of  the  laity  were  against  his  being  ordained 
presbyter,  because  it  was  not  lanful,  they  said,  for  any 
one  that  had  been  baptized  in  his  bed,  in  time  of  sick- 
ness (■'■01'  !'««■»>'  7rip4KveiHec),  as  he  had  been,  to  be 

admitted  to  any  office  of  the  clergy.”! 

Cornelius.  “He”  (Novatian)  “fell  into  a griev- 
ous distemper,  and  it  being  supposed,  that  he  would 
die  immediately,  he  received  baptism,  being  sprinkled 

* Ductor  Dubitaniium,  B.  iii  C.  iv.  Rule  15. 

! “ In  sacraraentis  salutaribus,  necessitate  cogente,  et  Deo 
indulgeniiam  suam  larwiente,  totuno  credentihus  conferunt  diving 
compendia.”  Epistola  ad  Magnum.  Edit.  Paris,  l643. 

X Hist,  ofjnf.  Bap,  Part  ii.  C.  ix.  p.  463, 


20 


with  water  on  the  bed  whereon  he  Iaj%  if  that  can  be 
termed  baptism.'"* 

Vale  SI  us.  “People  which  were  sick,  and  baptized 
in  their  beds,  could  not  be  dipped  in  water,  by  the  priest, 
but  were  sprinkled  with  water  by  him.  This  baptism 
rc^as  thought  imperfect.,  and  not  solemn  for  several  reasons. 
Also,  they,  who  were  thus  baptized,  were  called,  ever 
afterwards,  clinici  ; and  by  ^he  twelfth  canon  of  the  coun- 
cil of  Neocoesarea,  these  clinici  were  prohibited  priest- 
hood." 

Venema.  “Beveridge,  on  the  fiftieth  apostolical 
canon,  asserts,  that  the  ceremony  of  sprinkling  began 
to  be  used  instead  of  immersion,  about  the  time  of 
Pope  Gregory,  in  the  sixth  century  ; but  without  pro- 
ducing any  testimony  in  favour  of  his  assertion  ; and 
it  is  undoubtedly  a mistake.  Martene  declares,  in  his 
Antiq.  Eccles.  Bit.  L.  i.  p.  i.  C.  i.  that,  in  all  the  ritual 
books,  or  pontifical  manuscripts,  ancient  or  modem, 
that  he  had  seen,  immersion  is  required  ; except  by  the 
Cenomanensian,  and  that  of  a more  modern  date,  in 
which  pouring  on  the  head  is  mentioned.  In  the  coun- 
cil of  Ravenna,  also,  held  in  the  year  thirteen  hun- 
ck'ed  and  eleven,  both  immersion  and  pouring  are  left  to 
tiie  determination  of  the  administrator ; and  the  coun- 
cil  jof  Nismes,  in  the  year  one  thousand  two  hundred 
and  eighty-four,  permitted  pouring,  if  a vessel  could 
not  be  had ; tliereforc,  only  in  case  of  necessity.’’^ 

Dr.  Whitby.  “It  being  so  expressly  declared  here” 
(Rom.  vi.  4.)  “and  Col.  ii.  12,  that  wt  iwt  buried  with 
Christ  in  baptism,  by  being  buried  under  water,  and  the 
argument  to  oblige  us  to  a conformity  to  his  death,  by 
dying  to  sin,  being  taken  hence ; and  this  immersion  be- 
inj^  religiously  observed  by  all  Christians,  for  thirteen  cen- 
turies, and  approved  by  our  church  ; and  the  change  of 
it  into  sprinkling,  even  without  any  allowance  from  the 

* Epist.  ad  Fahium,  apu  J Enscl).  Hist.  Eccles.  L.  vi.  C.  xliii. 

+ .Vo/<?  in  iMiseli.  Eccics,  Hist.  B.  vi.  C.  xliii.  Cuinb.  l6s3. 

^ Hist.  Eccles.  Seoul,  vi.  § 251. 


21 


Author  of  this  institution,  or  any  license  from  any  coun- 
cil of  the  church,  being  that  which  the  Romanist  still 
iirgeth  to  justify  his  refusitl  of  the  cup  to  the  laity  ; it 
were  to  be  wished,  that  this  custom  might  be  again  of 
genentl  use,  and  aspersion  only  permitted,  as  of  old,  in 
case  of  the  climci,  or  in  present  danger  of  death.”* 

Mr.  Stackhouse.  “ Accordingly,  several  authors 
have  shewn,  that  we  read  no  where  in  scripture,  of  any 
one’s  being  baptized  but  by  immersion  ; and  from  the 
acts  of  councils,  and  ancient  rituals,  have  proved,  that 
tliis  manner  of  immersion  continued,  as  much  as  possi- 
ble, to  be  used,  for  thirteen  hundred  years  after  Christ.”f 
Dr.  Wall.  “France  seems  to  have  been  the  first 
country  in  the  world,  where  baptism,  by  affusion,  w^as 
used  ordinarily  to  persons  in  health,  and  in  the  public 
way  of  administering  it. — It  being  allowed  to  weak 
children”  (in  the  reign  of  Queen  Elizabeth) — “ to  be 
baptized  by  aspersion,  many  fond  ladies  and  gentlewo- 
men first,  and  then,  by  degrees,  the  common  people, 
would  obtain  the  favour  of  the  priest,  to  have  their 
children  pass  for  weak  childi'en,  too  tender  to  endure 
dipping  in  the  water. — As  for  sprinkling,  properly 
called,  it  seems  it  tvas,  at  sixteen  hundred  and  forty- 
five,  just  then  beginning,  and  used  by  very  few.  It 
must  have  begun,  in  the  disorderly  times,  after  forty- 
one. — They”  (the  assembly  of  divines  in  Westminster) 
“ reformed  the  font  into  a basin.  This  learned  assem- 
bly could  not  remember,  that  fonts  to  baptize  in  had 
been  always  used  by  the  primitive  Christians,  long 
before  the  beginning  of  poperj%  and  ever  since  churches 
were  built  ; but  that  sprinkling,  for  the  common  use  of 
baptizing,  was  really  introduced  (in  France  first,  and 
then  in  other  popish  countries,)  in  times  of  popery.  And 
that,  accordingly,  all  those  countries,  in  which  the  usurped 
power  of  the  pope  is,  or  has  formerly  been  owned,  have  left 
off  dipping  of  children  in  the  font  ; hut  that  all  other  coun- 

* Note  on  Rom.  vi.  4. 
t Hist,  of  the  Bible,  B.  viii.  C.  i. 


22 


tries  m the  world,  which  had  never  regarded  his  authority, 
do  still  use  it ; and  that  basins,  except  in  cases  of  necessity, 
were  never  used  by  papists,  or  any  other  Christians  what- 
soever, till  by  themselvesy^ 

“ The  way,  that  is  now  ordinarily  used,  we  cannot 
deny  to  have  been  a novelty,  brought  into  this  church, 
by  those  that  had  learned  it  in  Germany,  or  at  Geneva. 
And  they  were  not  contented  to  follow  the  example  of 
pouring  a quantity  of  water  (which  had  there  been  in- 
troduced instead  of  immersion,)  but  improved  it,  if  I 
may  so  abuse  that  word,  from  pouring  to  sprinkling  ; 
that  it  might  have  as  little  resemblance  of  the  ancient 
way  of  biiptizing,  as  possible.”! 

Let  me  conclude  this  part  of  the  discourse,  with  one 
remark.  The  question  which  w^e  have  examined,  evi- 
dentlv  relates,  not  to  the  mode,  but  the  nature  of  baptism. 
^\e  have  not  been  inquiring,  how  baptism  must  be  per- 
formed, in  order  to  be  valid ; but  simply,  what  baptism  is. 
If  the  several  considerations,  which  have  l)een  pre- 
sented, are  sufficient  to  shew,  that  baptism  is  immer- 
sion, it  is  equally  clear  that  the  terms  baptism  and  im- 
mersion are  equivalent  and  interchangeable,  and  that 
when  Christ  commanded  his  disciples  to  be  baptized,  he 
commanded  them  to  be  immersed. 

II.  To  whom  is  baptism  to  be  administered? 

The  words  of  the  commission  are,  Go  ye,  therefore, 
and  teach  (or  rather  disciple J all  nations,  baptizing  them 
into  the  name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the 
Holy  Ghost. X Is  there  any  difficulty  in  understanding 
these  plain  instructions?  Did  not  Christ  obviously 
intend,  that  the  apostles  should  make  disciples  from 
among  all  nations,  and  then  baptize  them  ? He  surely 
did  not  intend,  that  they  should  baptize  whole  nations 
indiscriminately ; but  those  of  the  nations  who  should 

* Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  Part  ii  C.  ix. 
f Dcf.  of  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  |>.  403. 

! According  to  the  Greek, 


23 


become  disciples.*  This  is  confirmed  by  the  terms  of 
the  commission,  as  recorded  by  Mark  : “ Go  ye  into  all 
the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature.  He 
that  believeth,  and  is  baptized^  shall  be  saved.”t 

Notwithstanding  the  obvious  import  of  tlie  law  of 
baptism,  the  greater  part  of  the  Christian  world  baptize 
the  children  of  believers,  on  the  faith  of  their  parents, 
or  the  profession  of  their  sponsors,  and  refuse  baptism 
to  believers,  if  they  have  been  baptized  in  infancy.  Does 
their  practice  appear  consistent  with  the  command  of 
Christ  ? Christ  commands  those  who  believe,  to  be  bap- 
tized. Poedobaptists  adopt  a system,  which  tends  to 
preclude  the  baptism  of  believers.  They  baptize  the 
involuntary  infant,  and  deprive  him  of  the  privilege  of 
ever  professing  his  faith  in  the  appointed  way.  If  this 
system  were  universally  adopted,  it  would  banish  be- 
lievers’ baptism  out  of  the  world.  But  leaving  the 
evident  discordance,  betw-een  the  system  of  the  Pcedo- 
baptists,  and  the  command  of  Christ,  let  us  inquire, 
whether  infant  baptism  has  any  just  support,  either  di- 
rect or  inferential. 

When  any  practiee  is  proposed  and  enforced  as  bind- 
ing duty,  we  have  a right  to  examine  the  grounds  of 
the  alleged  obligation.  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the 
proposer  to  show,  that  the  practice  is  innocent,  or  even 
compatible  with  every  other  duty  : it  is  necessary,  that 

* Dr.  Campbell.  “ Go,  therefore,  convert  all  the  nations,  bap- 
tizing them,"  ^c.  “ There  are  manifestly  three  things,  which 

ou  Lord  here  distinctly  enjoins  his  ai>nsfles  to  ex»"rnte,  with  re- 
gard to  the  nations;  to  wit  /uxtnkvuy,  ^tSxirxeiy,  that  is, 

to  convert  them  to  the  faith,  to  iini  laie  me  touveris  imo  the  church 
by  baptism,  and  to  instruct  the  baptized  in  all  the  duties  of  the 
Christian  life.”  four  Gospels,  and  Note  on  the  place. 

Mr.  Baxter.  Go,  disciple  me  all  nations,  baptizing  them. 
As  for  those  that  say,  they  are  discipled  by  baptizing,  and  not 
before  baptizing,  they  speak  not  the  sense  of  that  text. — When 
Christ  layeth  down,  in  the  apostolical  commission,  the  nature  and 
order  of  his  apostles’  work,  it  is  first  to  make  disciples,  and  then 
to  baptize  them  into  the  name  of  the  Father,”  &c.  Disputat.  of 
Right  to  Sacram.  p.  91> 

t Mark  xvi.  15,  l6. 


24 


]ic  prove  it  binding.  If  one  should  enforce  the  ancient 
custom  of  wearing  white  garments,  for  several  days 
after  baptism,  as  the  duty  of  e\^ery  Christian,  it  would 
not  be  necessary  for  us  to  urge  one  argument  against 
it ; nor  would  it  be  sufficient  for  him  to  prove  it  inno- 
cent, or  even  compatible  with  every  other  duty.  We 
might  reasonably  refuse  compliance,  until  he  should 
prove,  that  we  are  bound  to  comply.  So,  in  the  case 
of  infant  baptism,  it  is  not  necessary  for  us  to  urge  one 
argument  against  it ; nor  is  it  sufficient  for  the  pro- 
poser to  prove,  that  every  objection  is  groundless. 
The  thing  requisite  is  clear  evidence,  that  it  is  a bind- 
ing duty.  The  question  with  every  parent  ought  to  be, 
Am  I under  obligation  to  have  my  children  baptized  ? 
Now,  on  what  grounds  is  this  obligation  predicated  ? 

We  should  naturally  expect  that  the  baptism  of  in- 
fants, if  enjoined  at  all,  would  have  been  enjoined  in 
the  law,  which  instituted  the  ordinance  of  Christian 
baptism.  But  this  law  is  silent  on  the  subject  of  in- 
fants. Has  not  Christ,  however,  left  some  other  com- 
mand, enjoining  infant  baptism  ? Not  one.  Have  not 
the  apostles,  who  were  entrusted  witli  farther  com- 
munications of  the  will  of  Christ,  left  some  command 
on  this  subject?  Not  one.  Have  they  not  left  us  some 
example  of  infant  baptism  ? Not  one.  Have  they  not 
spoken  of  baptized  infants,  and  thus  given  undeniable 
intimation  of  this  practice  ? No,  in  no  instance.  On 
the  contrary,  whenever  they  have  spoken  of  baptism,  or 
of  those  to  whom  it  was  administered,  their  language 
imi)lies,  that  baptism  was  a voluntary  act  of  worship, 
and  the  baptized,  professing  believers.  “ As  many  of 
you,”  said  Paul  to  the  Galatians,  “ as  have  Ixen  bap- 
tized into  Christ,  have  put  on  Christ.^'  Gal.  iii.  27. 

But  docs  not  the  baptism  of  the  households  of  Lydia, 
the  jailer  and  Stephanas,  afford  some  evidence  in  favour 
ol‘  this  practice  ? 

As  the  term,  househokh  does  not  necessarily  imply 
infants,  these  instances,  though  admitted  without  exam- 


25 


ination,  cannot  be  considered,  as  furnishing  any  certain 
precedent,  in  favour  of  the  baptism  of  infants.  Do 
they  afford  any  presumptive  evidence? 

It  appears,  that  Lydia  was  a woman  of  Thyatira,  re- 
siding in  Philippi,  for  tlie  purpose  of  trade.*  It  d(X?s 
not  appear,  that  she  had  a husband  or  children.  It  is 
more  probable,  that  her  household  was  composed  of  as- 
sistants in  her  business,  who,  following  her  example, 
believed  and  were  baptized.  For  we  are  informed,  that 
when  Paul  and  Silas  left  the  city,  they  entered  into  the 
house  of  Lydia,  and  saw  and  comforted  the  brethren.^ 

In  the  Case  of  the  jailer, f Paul  and  Silas  “ spake  unto 
him  the  word  of  the  Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  m his 
Iwuse'"’  And  he  “ rejoiced,  believing  in  God,  with  all 
his  house. 

Concerning  the  household  of  Stephanas,  Paul  writes, 
at  the  close  of  the  epistle,^  “ that  it  is  the  first-fruits 
of  Achaia,  and  that  they  have  addicted  themselves  to  the 
ministry  of  the  saints.^'^ 

Thus,  in  each  of  these  instances,  especially  in  the 
two  latter,  some  circumstances  appear,  which  lead  us  to 
conclude,  that  the  members  of  tliese  households  were 
professing  believers.  It  may,  therefore,  be  repeated, 
that  there  is  no  precept  nor  precedent  in  scripture^  for  in- 
fant baptism. 

* Acts  xvi.  14,  15.  t Acts  xvi.  40.  if  ^3 — 34. 

11  Dr.  Macknight.  “ Having  believed  in  God  with  all  his  house  ; 
who,  it  seems,  were  equally  impressed  uitli  Paul's  sermon,  as  the 
jailer  himself  was.”  Life  of  the  jlpostle  Pauly  Chap.  v. 

Calvin. — “ in  which  also  the  grace  of  God  illustriously  appear- 
ed, because  it  suddenly  brought  the  whole  family  to  a pious  con- 
sent.” Comment,  in  loc. 

§ 1 Cor.  xvi.  15. 

HDr  .Macknight.  “ The  family  of  Stephanas  seem  all  to  have 
been  adults,  when  they  were  baptized.  For  they  are  said,  chap, 
xvi.  15,  to  have  devoted  themselves  to  the  ministry  to  the  saints.^’ 
Translation  of  the  Apost.  Epist.  Note  1st.  on  I Cor  i.  lb. 

Dr.  Guyse.  “ It  therefore  seems — that  the  family  of  Stepha- 
nas were  all  adult  believers,  and  so  were  baf)tized  upon  their  own 
personal  profession  of  faith  in  Christ.”  ISote,  on  1 Cor.  i.  l6. 

D 


26 


Let  us  next  examine  the  inferential  evidence,  ad- 
duced in  favour  of  this  practice. 

Children^  it  is  said,  have  been  connected  with  their  par- 
ents, in  covenant  with  God,  and  in  consequence  of  this  con- 
nexion, have  received,  by  divine  appointment,  the  initiating 
seal ; their  covenant  connexion  has  never  been  dissolved, 
nor  their  right  to  the  iniatiating  seal  disanmdled.* 

It  does  not  follow,  that  children  are  connected  with 
their  parents  in  every  covenant,  because  they  were  con- 
nected with  their  parents  in  one  covenant.  The  \vhole 
strength  of  the  argument,  now  presented,  rests  in  the 
supposition,  that  the  covenant  of  grace,  in  ^^■hich  Chris- 
tians now  stand,  is  the  same  with  the  covenant  of  cir- 
cumcision, in  which  children  were  connected  with  their 
parents.  The  latter  covenant  is  recorded  in  the  seven- 
teenth chapter  of  Genesis. 

“ And  when  Abram  was  ninety  years  old  and  nine,  the 
Lord  appeared  to  Abram,  and  said  unto  him,  1 am  the 
Almighty  God  ; tvalk  before  me,  and  be  thou  perfect. 
And  I will  make  my  covenant  between  me  and  thee,  and 
will  multiply  thee  exceedingly.  And  Abram  fell  on 
his  face  ; and  God  talked  with  him,  saying.  As  for  me, 
behold,  my  covenant  is  with  thee,  and  thou  shalt  be  a 
father  of  many  nations.  Neither  shall  thy  name  any 
more  be  called  Abram,  but  thy  name  shall  be  called 
Abraham  ; for  a father  of  many  nations  have  I made 
thee.  And  I will  make  thee  exceeding  fruitful,  and  I 
will  make  nations  of  thee,  and  kings  shall  come  out  of 
thee.  And  I will  establish  my  covenant  between  me 
and  thee,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  in  their  generations, 
for  an  everlasting  covenant,  to  be  a God  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee.  And  I ^v  ill  give  unto  thee,  and 
to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  n hcrcin  thou  art  a 
stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  everlasting 
possession  ; and  I will  be  their  God.  And  God  said 
unto  Abraham,  Tliou  shalt  keep  my  covenant,  therefore, 
thou,  and  thy  seed  after  tlicc,  in  their  generations. 

* See  Dr.  Worcester’s  Letters  to  Dr.  Baldwin,  Let.  xxi.  p.  3. 


27 


riiis  is  my  covenant,  which  ye  shall  keep,  between  me 
and  you,  and  thy  seed  after  thee  : Every  man  child 

among  you  shall  be  circumcised.  And  ye  shall  circum- 
cise the  flesh  of  your  foreskin  ; and  it  shall  be  a token 
of  the  covenant  betwixt  me  and  you.  And  he  that  is 
eight  days  old,  shall  be  circumcised  among  you,  every 
man  child  in  your  generations,  he  that  is  born  in  the 
house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any  stranger,  n hich  is 
not  of  thy  seed.  He  that  is  born  in  thy  house,  and  he 
that  is  bought  with  thy  money,  must  needs  be  circum- 
cised ; and  my  covenant  shall  be  in  your  flesh,  for  an 
everlasting  covenant.  And  the  uncircumciscd  man  child, 
whose  flesh  of  his  foreskin,  is  not  circumcised,  that  sotil 
sliall  be  cut  off  from  liis  people  ; he  hath  broken  my 
covenant.”  The  covenant  proceeds,  tvith  regard  to  Sarah 
and  Ishmael,  and  closes  in  the  twenty-second  verse. 

I now  ask  the  Christian  parent.  Is  this  the  covenant, 
which  God  has  made  with  you  ? Has  God  covenanted  to 
gi^^e  you  t/iese  blessings  ? Though  he  may  have  covenant- 
ed to  give  you  some  of  these  blessings,  together  with 
many  others,  the  question  must  be  repeated,  Is  this 
the  very  covenant  xvhich  God  has  made  with  you  ? If,  on 
examining  the  several  parts  of  the  covenant,  you  feel 
authorized  to  answer  in  the  affirmative,  I reply,  You 
are  under  sacred  obligations  to  perform  your  part.  You 
are  under  sacred  obligation  to  circumcise,  or  (if  you 
are  satisfied,  that  baptism  is  substituted)  to  baptize 
“ every  man  child”  “ that  is  eight  days  old  him  “tliat 
is  born  in  tlie  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any  stran- 
ger, which  is  not  of  thy  seed.”  It  is  in  direct  disobe- 
dience of  the  command  of  God,  to  baptize  before  the 
eighth  day,  or  to  defer  baptism  beyond  the  eighth  day. 
It  is  an  entire  departure  from  the  command  of  God,  to 
baptize  a female  child,  or  to  withhold  baptism  from  one 
“ that  is  born  in  the  house,  or  bought  with  money  of  any 
stranger,  which  is  not  of  thy  seed.”  God  has,  in  no  part 
of  his  word,  released  you  from  your  obligation  to  bap- 
tize on  the  eighth  day.  Nor  has  he  required  you  to  bap- 
tize a female  child.  “ Who  hath  required  this  at  your 


28 


hand?”  Nor  has  he  released  you  from  your  obligation 
to  baptize  the  servant,  born  in  the  house,  or  bought 
with  money.* 

But  I ask  again.  Do  you  really  believe,  that  God  has 
promised  to  you  the  very  blesshigs,  which  he  promised 
to  Abraham  and  his  seed  ? Do  you  really  believe,  that 
God  has  promised  to  give  you  the  land  of  Canaan,  even 
that  land,  in  winch  your  father  Abraham  was  a stranger  ? 
If  not,  whatever  blessings  God  has  promised  to  you, 
whatever  covenant  he  has  made  with  you,  it  is  not  the 
covenant,  which  he  made  with  Abraham,  and  in  wliich 
children  were  connected  with  parents. 

* Gal.  iii.  28.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is  neither 
bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female  ; for  ye  are  all  one 
in  Christ  Jesus.  This  passage  has  been  produced  botlias  a decla- 
ration of  the  right  of  female  infants  to  baptism,  and  as  a repeal  of 
the  right  of  servants. 

It  is  important,  in  construing  scripture,  to  adopt  the  verj'  mean- 
ing, which  the  inspired  writer  obviously  intended  to  convey  ; and 
not  to  suffer  the  mind  to  lay  hold  on  some  distant  meaning,  which 
is  contrary  to  the  whole  scope  of  the  context,  and  probably,  would 
never  have  occurred,  had  not  an  hypothesis  needed  its  support.  If 
the  latter  licentious  tnode  of  interpretation  be  tolerated,  any  doc- 
trine, however  trifling  or  contradictory,  any  practice,  however  pu- 
erile or  pernicious,  may  be  proved  to  be  scriptural. 

In  the  passage  before  us,  let  us  ascertain,  what  characters  are 
described,  and  in  w hat  respect,  they  are  one  in  Christ  Jesus. 

A’er . 26.  For  ye  are  all  the  children  oj  God,  by  faith  in  Christ  Je- 
sus. 27.  For  as  many  of  you,  as  have  been  baptized  into  Christ, 
have  put  on  Christ.  28.  There  is  neither  Jew  nor  Greek,  there  is 
neither  bond  nor  free,  there  is  neither  male  nor  female ; for  ye 
are  all  one  in  Christ  Jesus.  Is  it  not  too  evident  to  require  any 
remark,  that  the  apostle  is  speaking  of  believers  only,  such  ns  are 
the  children  of  God  by  faith  in  Clirist,  and  have  put  on  Christ  by 
being  baptized  } 

2 The  Galatians,  through  the  influence  of  Judaizing  teachers, 
bad  imbibed  the  error,  that  in  order  to  be  justified,  it  was  necessa- 
ry to  bo  circumcised,  and  to  keep  the  Mosaic  law.  The  chief 
object  of  the  apostle,  in  this  epistle,  and  particularly  in  this  chap- 
ter, is  to  show,  that  w e must  be  justified  by  faith  alone  ; that  it  is 
not  necessary  to  become  a Jew,  in  order  to  be  Justified  ; for  in 
Christ  Jesus,  no  distinction  of  nation,  outward  condition,  or  sex, 
is  of  any  avail.  In  Christ  Jesus,  there  is  neither  Jew.  nor  Greek, 
boml  nor  fr<’e,  male  nor  female.  Ij' ye  have  faith  in  Christ,  what- 
ever he  your  descent  or  condition,  ye  are  all  on  an  equality,  in  point 
of  acceptance  with  God. 


29 


That  the  promise  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  was,  at 
least,  one  principal  promise,  in  the  covenant  of  circum- 
cision, appears  from  the  numerous  passages,  in  which 
it  is  distiuguislicd  and  presented,  as  the  substanee  of 
the  eovenant. 

God  said  to  Moses,  “ I appeared  unto  Abraham,  unto 
Isaae,  and  unto  Jaeob — and  I have  also  established  my 
covenant  with  them,  to  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan^  the 
land  of  their  pilgrimage,  -wherein  they  ivere  strangers.'”* 
David  exhorted  Israel ; “ O ye  seed  of  Israel  his  ser- 
vant, ye  ehildren  of  Jacob,  his  chosen  ones. — Be  ye 
mindful  always  of  his  covenant ; the  word  which  he 
commanded  to  a thousand  generations  ; even  of  the 
covenant,  which  he  made  w ith  Abraham,  and  of  his 
oath  unto  Isaac  ; and  hath  confirmed  the  same  to  Jacob 
for  a law,  and  to  Israel  for  an  everlasting  covenant, 
saj'ing.  Unto  thee  will  I give  the  land  of  Canaan,  the  lot 
of  your  inheritance. The  same  sentiment  prevailed 
in  the  time  of  Nehemiah  ; for  on  a day  of  fasting,  the 
whole  congregation  of  Israel  addressed  God  in  praj^er ; 
“ Tliou  art  the  Lord  the  God,  who  didst  choose  Abram — 
and  madest  a covenant  w'ith  him,  to  give  the  land  of  the  Ca- 
naanites — to  his  seed.”\ 

'rhe  covenant  of  grace  does  not  contain  this  promise. 
When  we  contemplate  two  covenants,  and  see  that  one 
principal  article,  contained  in  the  one,  is  not  contained 
in  the  other,  by  what  singular  process,  can  the  mind  be 
brought  to  the  conclusion,  that  these  two  covenants, 
so  palpably  different  and  distinct,  are  one  and  the  same  ? 

But  it  is  urged,  that  “ the  covenant  made  with  Abra- 
ham, is  expressly  declared  to  be  an  everlasting,  or  per- 
petual covenant ; a covenant  to  continue  to  the  latest 
generations. 

And  tvas  not  the  land  of  Canaan  given  to  Abraham 
and  his  seed,  for  an  everlasting  possession?”  Even 
when  the  covenant  is  represented  as  “ the  word,  which 

* Exod.  vi.  3,  4.  t 1 Cliron.  xvi.  13 — 18.  J Neh.  ix. -7>  8. 

§ Dr.  Worcester’s  Tvdo  Discourses,  Disc.  1.  p.  27« 


30 


God  commanded  to  a thousand  generatioJts,''  the  promise 
of  the  land  of  Canaan  is  brought  forward,  as  the  chief 
thing,  yea,  as  the  t^ery  sum  and  substance  of  this  ever- 
lasting covenant. 

So  also  the  i^riesthood  was  confirmed  to  Phinehas 
and  his  seedy  in  an  everlasting  covenant.*  So  also  the 
feast  of  expiation,  on  die  tenth  day  of  the  seventh 
month,  ivas  established  by  a statute,  which  was  declar- 
ed to  be  an  everlasting  statute,  f 

It  is  urged,  that  the  coi  cnant  “ comprised  all  the 
blessings  and  privileges  ever  promised  to  believers  and 
the  church.” 

\Vhcther  this  be  true  or  not,  since  it  comprised  one 
blessing,  ivhich  is  not  comprised  in  the  covenant  of 
grace,  it  cannot  be  the  same  covenant.  But  is  it  true  ? 

The  two  principal  promises  made  to  die  seed  of  Abra- 
ham, are,  that  God  would  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan, 
and  that  he  woidd  be  their  God.  What  is  the  import 
of  the  latter  promise  ? 

Is  there  any  absurdity  in  saying,  diat  God  w'as  the 
God,  not  onl3'  of  the  few  pious  descendants  of  Abraham, 
but  of  the  nation  of  Israel  at  large?  Was  he  not  the 
God  of  the  Jews,  in  a sense,  in  which  he  was  not  the 
God  of  the  Gentiles?  Did  he  not  select  the  posterity 
of  Abraham,  in  the  line  of  Isaac  and  Jacob,  and  distin- 
guish them  above  all  other  nations?  Did  he  not  pro- 
tect them  from  their  enemies,  and  grant  them  a rich 
abundance  of  temporal  blessings  ? Did  he  not  give  them 
his  law,  and  establish  among  them  his  worship,  and  the 
oi'dinances  of  his  house  ? Did  he  not,  by  these  spirit- 
ual advtmtages,  furnish  them  nith  opportunities,  which 
no  other  nation  enjoyed,  of  obtaining  him,  as  their 
spiritual  portion  ? Is  there  any  absurdity  in  saying, 
that,  in  these  respects,  he  was  the  God  of  the  nation 
at  large?  If  not,  is  there  any  absurdity  in  supposing, 
that  his  promise  imported,  that  he  would  be  their  God, 
in  these  respects  ? 


* Num.  XXV.  13. 


t Lev.  xvi.  34. 


31 


God  is  represented,  in  the  scriptures,  as  the  God 
of  his  people,  in  dift'erent  senses.  AMien,  in  the  new 
covenant,  he  promises  to  put  his  laws  in  their  mind, 
luid  to  write  them  in  their  hciirts,  and  to  be  to  them  a 
God,*  the  promised  renewal  of  heart  shows,  that  the 
latter  promise  imports  that  he  w’ill  be  the  spiritual 
portion  of  his  people.  \\'hen  in  the  Revelation,  it  is 
promised,  that  God  will  be  with  men,  and  be  their 
God,t  the  connexion  shows,  that  the  promise  imports, 
that  he  will  be  their  eternal  portion.  When,  in  the 
cotenant  of  circumcision,  he  promised  to  be  the  God 
of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  the  connexion  of  this  promise 
with  other  promises,  and  the  manner  of  fulfilment, 
show,  that  the  promise  imported,  that  he  would  multi- 
ply and  protect  them  ; that  he  w'ould  grant  them  an 
abundance  of  temporal  blessings  ; and  that  he  would 
distinguish  them  above  all  other  nations,  by  spiritual 
advantages. 

The  seed,  to  W'hich  the  land  of  Canaan  w’as  promis- 
ed, w-as,  most  evidently,  the  lineal  descendants  of  Abra- 
ham. To  the  same  seed,  the  Lord  promised  to  be  a 
God.  Mark  the  terms  of  the  promises : “ I will  give 
unto  thee,  and  to  thy  seed  after  thee,  the  land  w'herein 
thou  art  a stranger,  all  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  ever- 
lasting possession  ; and  I will  be  their  God.”  But  he 
was  not  their  God,  in  a spiritual  sense.  It  appears 
from  their  history,  tliat,  in  every  age,  a remnant  onlj* 
were  truly  pious. 

Those  who  maintain,  that  he  promised  to  be  the 
spiritual  portion  of  the  seed  of  Abraham,  ai'e  obliged 
to  explain  the  promise  to  mean,  that  God  w'ould  be 
the  God  of  some  of  the  seed  of  Abraham.  Is  this  a fair 
explanation  ? Is  it  not  using  undue  freedom  w ith  the 
word  of  God  ? Is  it  not  indeed  a frittering  away  of 
the  plain  import  of  scripture? 

Suppose  that  a king  should  promise  peculiar  privi- 
leges, to  a faithful  subject  and  his  posterity  ; not  all  or 


* Heb.  viii.  10, 


t Rev.  xxi.  3. 


32 


some,  but  simply  his  posterity.  Would  not  the  sub- 
ject be  authorized  to  expect,  that  all  his  posterity 
Avould  enjoy  these  privileges?  Suppose  that  it  should 
appear,  that  the  king  actually  conferred  certain  pecu- 
liar privileges,  on  all  the  posterity,  excepting  those 
who  refused  his  kindness.  Suppose,  farther,  that  it 
should  appear,  that  the  king  had  selected,  from  among 
his  subjects,  a number,  in  which  were  some  of  the  pos- 
terity of  the  faithful  subject,  and  raised  them  to  nobility. 
Would  there  be  any  doubt,  concerning  the  import  of 
the  king’s  promise  to  his  faithful  subjeet  ? Could  it 
be  urged,  with  any  appearance  of  probability,  that, 
when  he  promised  peculiar  privileges,  to  the  posterity 
of  this  subject,  he  did  not  intend  those  which  he  actu- 
ally conferred  on  them,  but  that  nobility,  which  he  con- 
ferred on  a very  few  of  them  ? 

God  covenanted  to  give  the  land  of  Canaan  and  his 
favour,  to  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  in  the  line  of 
Isaac.  That  his  posterity  were  not  to  come  into  imme- 
diate possession  of  the  land,  had  been  previously  stipu- 
lated.* God  faithfully  performed  his  promises.  He 
conferred  the  blessings  promised,  on  the  posterity  of 
Abraham,  in  the  line  of  Isaac,  excepting  those  only,  who 
rejected  his  kindness.  A refusal  to  accept  a promised 
favour,  always  releases  the  promiscr  from  his  obliga- 
tion. Esau  and  his  posterity,  as  well  as  many  of  the 
posterit}’’  of  Jacob,  refused  to  accept  the  Lord  as  their 
God  ; not  merely  refused  to  accept  him,  as  their  spirit- 
ual portion,  but  refused  to  accept  him,  as  their  God  in 
the  sense  promised.  They  acknowledged  and  wor- 
shipped other  gods.  'I'he  Israelites  frequently  forsook 
God ; and  he  as  frequently  forsook  them.  But  when 
they  repented  and  returned  to  him,  he  remembered  his 
covenant,  and  delivered  them  from  their  distresses.  At 
length,  they  rejected  him,  in  the  most  decided  manner, 
by  rejecting  his  Son.  They  would  not  have  him  to 
reign  over  them.  Since  that  lime,  God  has  forsaken 


* Gen.  XV.  13 — iC. 


33 


tliem.  But  when  they  shall  repent  and  return,  Gotl 
will  again  remember  his  covenant.  The  manner,  how- 
ever, in  u hich  he  will  restore  his  favour,  though  intimat- 
ed in  the  prophecies,  can  be  learned  from  the  event  only. 

What  is  the  ground  taken  by  the  advocates  of  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  ? Do  they  say,  that  God  prom- 
isal  to  be  the  God  of  Abraham’s  seed,  in  a spiritual 
sense,  if  they  accepted  the  promise  ? “ This  would  be  a 
complete  abandonment  of  their  argument.  For  it  would 
place  such,  as  claim  interest  in  the  co^•enant  of  circum- 
cision, exactly  upon  a level  with  all  others.  God  has 
engaged  to  save  all  who  reverence,  ^^’orship  and  obey 
him,  though  Abraham  be  ignorant  of  them,  and  Israel 
acknowledge  them  not.” 

Do  they  say,  that  the  promise  imported,  “ that,  on 
condition  of  faith  and  fidelity  on  Abraham’’ s part,  in  re- 
spect to  his  children,  they  sliould  become  subjects  of  grace, 
and  heirs  of  the  blessings  of  the  covenant 
I But  have  we  a right  to  make  conditions,  which  God 

has  not  made?  Have  we  a right  to  take  his  covenant, 
and  fashion  it  to  suit  our  preconcei^’ed,  favourite  sen- 
timents? God  did  not  promise,  I will  be  a God  to 
thy  seed,  on  condition  of  faith  and  fidelity  on  thy  part, 
in  respect  to  thy  seed.  Neither  in  this  covenant,  nor 
in  any  of  his  communications  with  Abraham,  did  God 
inform  him,  that  the  grand  condition,  on  which  he 
would  be  a God  to  his  seed,  was  fidelity  on  his  part,  in 
respect  to  his  seed.\ 

* Dr.  Worcester’s  Tivo  Discourses,  Disc.  1,  p.  36. 

i"  Gen.  xviii.  19«  For  I know  him,  that  he  will  command  his 
children,  and  his  household  after  him,  and  they  shall  keep  the  way 
of  the  Lord,  to  do  justice  and  judgment  ; that  the  Lord  may  bring 
7tpon  Abraham  that  which  he  hath  spoken  of  him.  Much  stress 
has  been  laid  on  the  auxiliary  shall,  as  implying  an  engagement 
to  the  family  of  Abraham,  in  consequence  of  his  fidelity  in  instruct- 
ing them.  In  the  original,  the  grammatical  construction  of  the 
verb  iiDBf*,  rendered  they  shall  keep,  is  precisely  of  the  same  im- 
port, as  the  grammatical  construction  of  the  preceding  verb  ms*, 
rendered  he  tcill  command.  No  reason,  therefore,  can  be  given, 


34 


But  it  is  said,  that,  in  this  covenant,  God  required 
Abraham  to  walk  before  him,  and  to  he  perfect. 

Is  this  a condition  of  the  covenant  ? Did  God  sus- 
pend the  performance  of  liis  promises,  on  the  perfection 
of  Abraham  ? Surely,  then,  this  was  not  the  covenant 
of  grace.  Under  the  new  dispensation,  we  are  indeed 
commanded  to  love  God  with  all  the  heart,  and  to  be 
perfect  in  holiness.  God  requires  this  of  all  mankind 
under  eveiy  dispensation.  It  would  be  derogatory’  to 
his  che.racter  to  require  less.  But  this  is  not  a condi- 
tion of  the  covenant  of  grace.  The  blessings  of  tlie  cov- 
enant are  not  suspended  on  such  a condition.  If  we 
are  interested  in  Christ  by  faith,  notwithstanding  our 
imperfections  and  sins,  God  will  be  our  God  through 
grace.  Yet  the  author  above-cited  says,  “To  become 
entitled  to  the  blessings  of  the  covenant,  Abraham  must 
w^alk  before  God,  and  be  perfect.”*  If  so,  this  cov- 
enant was  certainly  not  the  covenant  of  grace.  It  might 
be  expected,  therefore,  that  the  advocates  of  this  cov- 
enant would,  for  the  sake  of  their  own  cause,  readily  ad- 
mit, and  strenuously  maintain,  what  appears  to  be  the 
fact,  that  this  requirement  was  not  a condition  of  the  cov- 
enant, or  even  a part  of  the  covenant,  but  merely  a 
preamble  or  introduction  to  the  covenant.  God  intro- 
duces the  solemn  transaction,  by  saying,  JFalk  before 
me,  and  he  thou  perfect.  Then  follows,  / rw// waA'6' ;ny 
covenant  with  thee.  Then  are  presented  the  terms  of  the 
covenant  ; first,  the  part  which  God  W’ould  perform, 
consisting  in  the  bestowment  of  several  blessings  on  Abra- 
ham, and  his  seed ; and  secondly,  the  part  which 

why  the  verbs  shoiihl  not  be  constructed  similarly  in  the  transla- 
tion. For  the  same  reason,  that  the  preceding  verb  is  rendered 
icill  command,  ought  the  tollowing  to  he  rendered  will  keep.  This 
passage  appears  to  contain  a prediction,  rather  than  an  engage- 
ment. (Jod  foresaw  that  Abraham  would  be  faithful  in  instruct- 
ing his  family  ; that  they  would  observe  the  requirements  taught 
them  ; and  that,  with  a view  to  this  obedience,  both  on  the  j)artof 
Abraham,  and  his  family,  he  might  bestow  on  them  the  promised 
blessings. 

* Ibid,  p.  34. 


S5 


Abraham  and  his  seed  were  to  perform;  consisting  in  the 
observance  of  the  rite  of  circumcision ; and  lastly,  sev- 
eral explanatory  and  restricting  articles,  with  regain!  to 
Sarah  and  Ishmacl  and  Isaac.  That  the  observance 
of  the  rite  of  circumcision,  was,  emphatically,  the  con- 
dition of  this  covenant,  appears  from  the  manner  in 
which  it  is  presented,  the  conspicuous  place  wliich  it 
holds  in  the  covenant,  and  the  penalty  attached  to  its 
neglect.  “ And  the  uncircumcised  man  child — shall  be 
cut  off  from  his  people  ; he  hath  broken  my  covenant. 

It  is  a popular  and  prevailing  sentiment,  lliat  this 
promise  imports,  that  so  many  of  the  seed  shall  be  sub- 
jects of  grace,  that  the  church  shall  be  peqjetuated  “ in 
the  line  of  natural  descent.'' 

Is  this  hypothesis  consistent  with  facts  ? Has  not  God 
transfeiTcd  the  church  from  the  posterity  of  Abraham  to 
the  Gentiles  ? Is  it  said  that  the  Jen  s were  rejected  be- 
cause of  unbelief  ? But  has  not  God  the  hearts  of  all  in 
his  hand  ? and  bad  he  not,  on  this  hji^otliesis,  promised, 
that  the  church  should  be  penjetuated  in  the  posterity 
of  Abraham?  Why,  then,  did  he  not  perform?  But  this 
is  not  the  only  transfer.  If  the  Christian  church  is  the 
same  with  the  Jewish,  ard  if  the  same  promises  are 
made  to  the  former,  as  nere  made  to  the  latter,  may 
it  not  be  asked,  W'here  are  the  descendants  of  the  once 
flourishing  churches,  in  the  north  of  Africa  ? W'here  arc 
the  descendants  of  iill  the  Asiatic  churches,  planted  by 
tlie  apostles  themselves  ? They  are  now  covered  with 
the  darkness  of  Mahomedan  superstition.  Sureh%  we 
are  not  there  to  look  for  the  church  of  Christ.  This 
church  is  now  transfeixed  to  the  west  of  Europe,  and  em- 
braces the  descendants  of  those,  who  were  bowing  down 
to  idols  of  wood  and  stone,  during  the  prosperity  of  the 
eastern  churches. 

It  is  true,  that  God  regards  tlie  prayers  of  pious  par- 
ents, for  their  offspring,  and  frequently  grants  his  bless- 
ing on  their  religious  instructions.  We  may,  there- 
fore, expect,  that,  in  places  where  the  truth  has  pre- 
vailed, a pious  seed  will  be  preserved  for  some  genera- 


36 


tions.  But  that  this  is  God’s  uniform  mode  of  operation, 
or  that  he  has  covenanted  to  perpetuate  the  church, 
in  the  line  of  ?iatural  descent,  a slight  glance  at  ecclesias- 
tical history  must  effectually  disprove. 

Let  us  next  consider  several  passages  in  the  New  Tes- 
tament, in  which  it  has  been  supposed,  that  the  covenant 
of  circumcision  is  recognized,  as  the  covenant  of  grace. 

On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  Peter  addressed  the  Jews ; 
“ The  promise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to 
all  that  are  afar  off,  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
shall  call.”*  The  expression,  unto  you  and  to  your 
children,  resembling  the  expression,  unto  thee  and  to  thy 
seed,  used  in  the  covenant  of  circumcision,  has  occasion- 
ed the  supposition,  that  this  is  a repetition  of  one  of 
the  promises,  contained  in  that  covenant.  There  Mere 
several  promises  made  to  Abraham  and  his  seed.  Does 
the  context  lead  us  to  suppose,  that  Peter  intended  one, 
rather  than  another  ? Or  was  one  of  the  promises  call- 
ed, by  May  of  eminence,  the  promise  ? Is  it  probable, 
that  Peter  alluded  to  one  of  the  promises  in  this  covenant, 
calling  it  the  promise,  M’hen,  through  his  M’hole  dis- 
course, he  had  not  spoken  of  Abraham,  or  of  any  cov- 
enant made  with  him  ? Is  it  not  probable — is  it  not  cer- 
tain, that  he  alluded  to  the  promise,  concerning  M’hich 
he  had  been  discoursing  from  the  first? 

The  Jews  M ere  astonished  at  the  pouring  out  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  disciples.  Peter  states  the  event,  as  a ful- 
filment of  the  promise,  spoken  by  the  prophet  Joel : 
“ And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  in  the  last  days,  saith  God,  1 
will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh  ; and  your  sons 
and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy,”  Scc.f 

In  tlie  progress  of  the  discourse,  he  says,  that  Jesus, 
having  received  of  the  Father  the  promise  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  hath  shed  forth  this ; and  finally,  he  exhorts 
them,  “ Repent  and  be  baptized  cverj’  one  of  you,  in  the 
name  of  Jc'sus  Christ,  for  the  remission  of  sins,  and  yc 
shall  receive  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  For  the  prom- 


* Acts  ii.  39. 


t Ver.  J7. 


37 


ise  is  unto  you,  and  to  your  children,  and  to  all  that  art 
afar  off',  even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  shall  call.” 
More  summarily,  thus  ; God  said,  I nill  pour  out  my 
Spirit  upon  all  flesh,  even  on  your  sons  and  daughters  ; 
Jesus  hath  rcceivt'd  this  promise,  and  begun  to  per- 
form it,  by  shedding  forth  this  on  us,  his  disciples  ; re- 
pent ye,  therefore,  and  ye  shall  receive  the  siime  gift ; 
the  Spirit  shall  be  poured  out  on  you  ; for  the  same  prom- 
ise is  made  to  you  and  to  your  children,  &c.* 

In  the  epistle  to  the  Galatians,  it  is  written,  “ If  ye  be 
Christ’s,  then  are  ye  Abraham’s  seed,  and  heirs  accord- 
ing to  the  promise.”! 

Let  us  inquire,  what  is  implied  in  believers’  being  the 
seed  of  Abraham ; and  what  promise  is  here  intended. 

In  the  context  (vcr.  6,  7,)  it  is  written,  “ Even  as 
Abraham  believed  God,  and  it  was  accounted  to  him  for 
righteousness  : Know  j*e,  therefore,  that  they  which  arc 
of  faith,  the  same  are  the  children  of  Abraham.”  Abra- 
ham believed ; therefore,  they  w ho  believe,  are  his  chil- 
dren. This  is  perfectly  in  the  style  of  scripture.  The 
unbelieving  Jews  are  called  children  of  the  devil,  because 
they  were  like  the  devil,  in  their  character  and  conduct. 
On  the  same  principle,  the  profligate  are  called  children 
of  Belial ; and  men  are  called  children  of  light,  and  chil- 
dren of  disobedience,  according  to  their  respective  char- 
acters. It  is  on  this  principle,  tliat  believers  are  called 
the  children  of  Abraham.  They  are  like  Abraham,  in 
their  character  and  conduct.  They  have  the  faith  of  A- 
braham.  “ And  if  children,  then  heirs.”  Accordingly, 
the  apostle  continues,  “ And  the  scripture,  foreseeing, 
that  God  w’ould  justify  the  heathen  through  faith, 
preached  before  the  gospel  unto  Abraham,  saying.  In 

* In  this  explanation  of  the  promise,  I am  happy  to  agree  with 
WiTsius,  Exercitat.  in  Symb.  Exercit.  xi.  § 19  ; Limborch, 
Comment,  in  loc.  Venema,  Dissertat.  Sue.  L.  iii.  C.  iv.  § 7,  b ; 
Dr.  OwETS , Doct.o/Saints Perseverance,  p.  Il6;  Dr.  Hammond, 
tForks,  Vol.  i.  p.  490;  Dr.  Whitby,  Annot,  on  the  place;  and 
Dr.  Doddridge,  Aote,  on  the  place. 

t Gal.  ii’,  29. 


38 


thee  shall  all  nations  he  blessed.  So  then,  they  which  be  of 
faith,  are  blessed  with  faithful  Abraham.”  And  again, 
(ver.  14,)  “That  the  blessing  of  Abraham  might  come 
on  the  Gentiles,  through  Jesus  Christ.”  And  in  the  last 
verse,  “ And  if  ye  be  Christ’s,  then  are  ye  Abraham’s 
seed,  and  heirs  according  to  the  promise.” 

There  can  be  no  doubt,  that  the  blessing,  of  which 
believers  are  heirs,  is  justification  by  faith ; and  that 
the  promise,  according  to  which  they  are  heirs  of  this 
blessing,  is  the  gospel  promise  made  to  Abraham.  If, 
says  the  apostle,  ye  have  the  faith  of  Abraham,  ye  are, 
therefore.,  his  children  ; and  as  Abraham  was  justified,  by 
having  his  faith  accounted  for  righteousness  ; and  as  the 
blessing  of  Abraham  is  come  on  the  Gentiles,  through 
Jesus  Christ,  so  that  they  who  are  of  faith,  are  blessed 
with  faithful  Abraham,  being  heirs  of  the  blessing  con- 
tained in  the  promise.  In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  bless- 
ed ; ye,  believing  Gentiles,  according  to  this  promise, 
are  justified  by  having  your  faith  accomited  for  right- 
eotisness.* 

* Dr.  Macknight.  on  Gal.  iii.  l6.  Translation.  "Now,  to 
Ahrahaui  were  the  promises  spoken,  and  to  his  setd.  (See  ver.  19  ) 
He  doth  not  sav,  And  in  seeds,  as  concerning  many,  l)ut  as  con- 
cerning one  person.  Ami  in  thy  seed,  who  is  Christ.” 

Note.  " He  does  not  say.  And  in  seeds.  So  raig  should 

be  translated,  the  preposition's»  being  understood  here,  as  is  plain 
from  the  promise  itself,  (len.  xxii.  18.  And  in  thy  seed  shall  all 
the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed  f The  apostle  having  affirmed, 
ver.  15,  that,  according  to  the  customs  of  men,  none  but  the  par- 
ties themselves,  can  set  aside  or  alter  a covenant  that  is  ratified,  he 
observes,  in  this  verse,  that  the  promises  in  the  covenant  with  A- 
bruhain,  were  made  to  him  and  to  his  seed.  The  promise  to  Abra- 
ham is  that  recorded,  Gen.  xii.  3.  In  thee  shall  all  the  families, 
Lxx.  5TJt(r*<  ui  (pvXxt,  all  the  tribes,  oj  the  earth  be  blessed.  'I'he 
promise  to  liis  seeh  is  that  recorded,  Gen.  xxii.  18.  And  in  thy  seed 
shall  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  be  blessed.  See  ver.  19.  Now 
since  by  the  oath  which  God  sware  to  Abraham,  after  he  liad  laid 
Isaac  on  the  altar,  bvith  [>roinises  were  ratified,  the  a|iostle  reasons 
jnst'v,  when  he  affi' ins,  that  both  [tromises  must  be  fulfilletl.  And 
itavii  g shown,  ver,  }),  that  the  promise  to  Abraham  to  bless  all  the 
fiiinilies  of  the  earth  in  him,  means  tiieir  being  blessed,  as  Abra- 
ham had  been,  not  with  justification  through  the  law  ol  Moses, 

I See  Acts  iii.  25  ; also  Luther's  Comment,  on  Galatiant,  p.  307. 


39 


The  same  sentiments  arc  contained  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Romans : “For  vve  say,  that  faith  was  reckoned  to 
Abraham  for  righteousness.  How  was  it  then  reckoned  ? 
when  he  was  in  circumcision,  or  in  uncircun^.cision  ? not 
in  circumcision,  but  in  uncircumcision.  And  lie  received 
the  sign  of  circumcision,  a seal  of  the  righteousness  of 
the  faith,  which  he  had  yet  being  uncircumciscd  : that  he 
might  lie  the  father  of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they 
be  not  circumcised  : that  righteousness  might  be  imputed 
unto  them  also.”'^  He  received  the  sign  of  circumcision^ 
a seal  of  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he  had  yet  be- 
ing uncircumcised.  The  meaning  of  the  apostle  cannot 
be,  that  Abraham  performed  circumcision  on  himself  and 
family,  and  thus  sealed  his  faith,  or  attested  his  faith,  as 
believers  seal  or  attest  their  faith  by  solemn  acts  of  wor- 
ship. Not  his  faith,  but  the  righteousness  of  his  faith, 
was  sealed.  Man  may  seal  or  attest  his  faith,  by  acts  of 
worship  and  obedience ; none  but  God,  can  seal  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.  None  but  God,  can  declare  faith  im- 
putable for  righteousness.  Abraham  received  the  sign 
of  circumcision,  as  a divine  attestation  of  the  righteous- 
ness of  his  faith ; or,  in  the  words  of  Stephen,  “ God  gave 
him  the  covenant  of  circumcision,”f  and  thus  sealed 

as  the  Jews  affirmed,  but  with  justification  by  faith,  he  proceeds, 
in  this  passage,  to  consider  the  promise  made  to  Abraham’s  seed, 
that  in  it  likewise,  all  the  nations  of  the  earth  should  be  blessed. 
And  from  the  words  oft  he  promise,  wh'ch  are  not,  andin  thy  seeds, 
but  in  thy  seed,  he  argues  that  the  seed,  in  which  the  nations  of  the 
earth  should  be  blessed,  is  not  Abraham’s  seed  in  general,  but  one 
ofhisseedin  particular,  namely,  Christ ; who,  by  dying  for  all 
nations,  hath  delivered  them  from  the  curse  of  the  law,  that  the 
blessing  of  Justification  by'  faith  might  come  on  believers  of  all 
nations,  through  Christ,  as  was  promised  to  Abraham  and  to 
Christ.” 

Dr.  Guyse.  “ The  covenant  that  I have  given  a hint  of,  (ver.  8, 
9,  14,)  relating  to  the  way  of  our  being  accepted  of  God  as  right- 
eous, consisted  of  a free  promise,  which,  because  of  its  vast  com- 
prehension of  blessings,  and  of  its  being  first  made  to  Abraham, 
and  afterwards  repeated  to  him,  and  to  Isaac,  (Gen.  xii.  3 and  xxii. 
18,  and  xxvi.  4,)  may  be  called  </ie  promises.”  Paraphrase  on 
Gal.  iii.  l6. 

* Rom.  iv.  9 — 11.  t Acts  vii,  8. 


40 


the  righteousness  of  his  faith,  or  declared,  that  his  faith 
was  accounted  for  righteousness.  Still  farther,  God  at- 
tested the  righteousness  of  that  faith,  which  Abraham 
had  in  uncircumcision,  and  thus  established  him  the  father 
of  all  them  that  believe,  though  they  be  not  circumcised, 
that  righteousness  might  be  imputed  to  them  also.  Had 
not  the  righteousness  of  this  faith  been  attested,  it  might 
have  been  doubted,  whether  Abraham  was  the  father  of 
any,  but  circumcised  believers,  and  whether  the  faith  of 
any  others  would  be  imputed  for  righteousness.  But 
God  attested  the  righteousness  of  that  faith,  which  he 
had  in  uncircumcision,  and  thus  proved,  that  it  is  not 
so  much  circumcision,  as  faith,  that  makes  us  children  of 
Abraham  ; and  consequently  (for  if  cliildren,  then  heirs,) 
that,  if  we  have  his  faith,  though  we  be  not  circumcised, 
our  faith,  like  his,  will  be  imputed  for  righteousness, 
and  thus  W’e  become  heirs  of  the  blessing  of  justification 
by  faith,  according  to  the  promise,  made  to  Abraham, 
In  thee  shall  all  nations  be  blessed. 

This  gospel  promise,  an  ever  memorable  charter  of 
all  the  blessings  which  Jewish  and  Gentile  believers 
enjoy  through  Clirist,  is  not  contained  in  the  covenant 
of  circumcision,  but  in  a covenant  made  with  Abraham, 
at  the  time  of  his  calling,  twenty-four  years  before, 
and  recorded  in  the  twelfth  chapter  of  Genesis.*  This 
covenant  was  confirmed  by  Abraham,  by  an  oatli,  w'hcn 
he  ofiered  up  Isaac  ;f  “ that  by  two  immutable  things,” 
a promise  and  an  oath,  “ in  which  it  was  impossible  for 
God  to  lie,  we  might  have  a strong  consolation.’’^  This 
covenant  was  renewed  to  Isaac  and  Jacob,  together  witli 
the  covenant  of  circumcision.  § This  is  the  covenant, 
which  the  apostle  Peter,  “ on  tlie  bright  morning  of  the 
gospel  day,”  presented  in  these  w oixls  : “ Ye  are  the 
children  of  the  prophets,  and  of  the  covenant,  which 
God  made  wfith  our  fatliers,  saying  unto  Abraham, 
And  m thy  seed  shall  all  the  kindreds  oj  the  earth  he  bless* 

* Ver.  2,  3.  f Gen.  xxii.  iG — 18.  % Ileb.  vi.  18. 

5 Gen.  xxvi.  3,  4,  and  xxviii.  13,  14. 


41 


ed."*  This  is  the  covenant,  which  lx;ing  “ confirmed 
belbre  of  God  in  Christ,  the  law,  which  was  four  hun- 
dred and  thirt5'  j'cars  after,”  and  we  may  add,  tlie  cov- 
enant of  circumcision,  which  was  twenty-four  years  af- 
ter, “ cannot  disannul,  that  it  should  make  the  promise 
of  none  eft'ect.”t 

But  it  will  be  said,  that  in  the  fourth  of  Romans,  we 
find  an  incontestible  application  of  one  of  the  promises 
in  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  The  apostle  repre- 
sents Abraham’s  being  the  fiuher  of  believers,  as  a ful- 
filment of  the  promise,  that  he  should  be  a father  of 
many  nations. 

The  New  Testament  writers  frequently  apply  histor- 
ical and  prophetical  passages  of  the  Old  Testament,  in  a 
secondary  sense,  v ilhout  giving  any  intimation  of  their 
primary  import.  The  Lord  said,  by  the  prophet  Ilosea, 
“ When  Israel  was  a child,  then  I loved  him,  and  called 
my  son  out  of  Egyp’.”J  This  is  applied,  by  an  evan- 
gelist, to  the  return  of  Jesus  from  Egypt,  without  any 
intimation  of  its  primary  import.  ||  The  Jews  were 
commanded  not  to  break  a bone  of  the  pasch  il  lamli.lf 
This  is  applied,  by  another  evangelist,  directly  to  Je- 
sus, without  any  intimation  of  its  primary  import.'^'^ 
In  the  case  before  us,  God  constituted  Abraham  a father 
of  many  nations.  This  is  applied,  bj^  an  apostle,  to 
Abraham’s  being  the  father  of  all  believers,  without  any 
intimation  of  its  primiu-y  import  and  fulfilment. 

These  instances  illustrate  the  principle,  on  which  the 
New  Testament  frequently  proceeds,  in  applying  events 
and  predictions,  recorded  in  the  Old  Testament.  We  are 
to  use  their  application,  with  proper  caution.  We  are 
not  to  extend  the  parallel  between  the  type  and  the 
antitype,  farther  than  we  are  authorized  by  tlie  inspired 
penmen. 

When  the  evangelist  represents  the  return  of  Jesus 
fi-om  Egypt,  as  a fulalmens;  of  that  which  was  spoken 
F 

'*  Arts  iii.  25.  f Gal.  iii.  17.  % Ver.  1 7.  § Hos.  xi.  1, 

I)  Matt,  ii,  IS.  51  Exod.  xii.  40.  **  .lohn  xix.  30'. 


42 


by  the  Lord,  “ Out  of  Egypt  have  I called  my  son,”  he 
recognizes  some  kind  of  identity  between  Jesus  and  the 
people  of  Israel.  When  the  apostle  represents  the  re- 
lation between  believers  and  Abraham,  as  a fulfilment 
of  that  which  was  spoken  to  Abraham,  “ A father  of 
many  nations  have  I made  thee,”  he  recognizes  some 
kind  of  identity  between  the  posterity  of  Abraham  and 
believers.  In  both  cases,  the  recognition  of  identity  is  of 
the  same  kind,  and  to  the  same  extent.  But  we  do  not 
infer,  from  the  former  application,  that  Jesus  and  Israel 
are  the  same,  in  any  other  respect,  than  that  they  both 
are  sons  of  God,  though  in  very  different  senses,  and 
were  both  called  out  of  Egypt.  Nor  from  the  latter, 
are  we  to  infer,  that  believers  and  the  posterity  of  Abra- 
ham are  the  same,  in  any  other  respect,  than  that  they 
both  have  Abraham  for  a father,  though  in  very  differ- 
ent senses ; tlie  one,  on  account  of  natural  descent, 
the  other,  on  account  of  faith.  We  instantly  discover 
the  impropriety  of  extending  the  parallel  between  Is- 
rael'and  Jesus,  or  of  reasoning  from  the  former  to 
the  latter  : And  is  it  not  as  evidently  improper  to  ex- 
tend the  parallel  between  the  posterity  of  Abraham 
and  believers  ? or  to  infer  that  the  latter  are  under 
the  same  regulations,  or  in  the  same  covenant,  as  the 
former  ? 

Though  the  evangelist  John  presents  the  fact,  that 
the  soldiers  broke  not  the  legs  of  Christ,  as  a fulfil- 
ment of  the  prophec5%  implied  in  the  command,  re- 
specting the  paschal  lamb,  “ Neither  shall  ye  break  a 
bone  thereof,”  and  thus,  in  the  most  unequivocal  man- 
ner, recognizes  an  identity  between  tlie  paschal  lamb 
and  Christ,  yet  we  do  not  hesitate  to  infer,  that  the 
lamb  was  merely  a type  of  Christ.  And  we  do  not 
feel  authorized  to  reason  from  tlie  type  to  the  anti- 
type. We  do  not  conclude,  that  Clirist  is  subject  to 
the  same  rules  of  treatment,  as  the  paschal  lamb  ; 
or  tliat  those  who  partake  of  Christ,  arc  bound,  by 
the  Mosaic  ritual,  to  use  the  same  ceremonies,  as 
the  Jews,  in  partaking  of  the  paschal  lamb.  Yet  this 


43 


may  be  proved,  by  the  same  kind  of  reasoninpr,  as  it 
can  be  proved,  from  the  allusion  of  the  apostle ; under 
consideration,  that  believers  are  subject  to  the  same 
R'gulations,  or  are  in  the  same  covenant,  as  the  poster- 
ity  of  Abraham.  But,  in  the  words  ol  Dr.  Scott,  when 
speaking  of  another  instance  of  “ forcing  figurative  Ian- 
guage  into  a literal  meaning,  and  so  grounding  doctrines 
upon  it,”  “ common  sense  is  usually  sufficient  to  preserve 
men  from  such  absurdities,  ^vhen  there  is  no  personal  or 
party  interest  to  serve  by  them.”* 

Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  the  important  fact, 
that,  with  regard  to  the  Gentiles,  the  token  of  the  cov- 
enant of  circu  incision  has  been  forbidden. 

When  certain  Jews  from  Jerusalem  taught  the  believ- 
ing Gentiles  at  Antioch,  that  except  they  were  circum- 
cised after  the  manner  of  Moses,  they  could  not  be  sav- 
ed, the  council  of  Apostles  and  elders,  assembled  in 
Jerusiilem,  under  the  special  direction  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
wrote  and  concluded,  that  the  bretliren  “ observe  no 
such  thing.”!  Accordingly,  Paul  wrote  to  the  Corin- 
thians, “ Is  any  man  called  in  uncircumcision,  let  him 
not  be  circumcised  ;”f  and  to  the  Galatians,  “ Behold, 
I Paul  say  unto  you,  that  if  ye  be  circumcised,  Christ 
shall  profit  you  nothing.”^ 

Is  not  the  prohibition  of  the  token  of  a covenant,  an  ex- 
plicit declaration,  that  the  covenant  is  abolished  ? 

God  instituted  the  rite  of  circumcision,  to  be  the  to- 
ken of  a certain  covenant,  which  he  made  with  Abra- 
ham and  his  seed,  and  declared,  at  the  same  time,  that  he 
who  did  not  receive  the  token,  had  broken  the  covenant. 
Such  a token  is  one  species  of  language.  \V’herever  it 
appears,  it  conveys  an  idea  of  what  it  was  instituted  to 
represent.  The  language  of  the  rainbow  is.  There  will 
never  again  be  a deluge.  The  language  of  the  sign  of 
circumcision  is.  Such  a covenant  exists  between  the  seed 

* Note  on  i Cor.  x.  4.  f Acts  xv.  1 — 31  and  xxi.  25. 

X I Cor,  vii.  18.  § Gal.  v.  2. 


44 


of  Abraham  and  God.  After  this  language  has  been 
allowed  for  several  centuries,  to  the  natural  and  also  to 
the  adopted  seed,  it  is  finally,  with  regard  to  the  Gen- 
tiles, expressly  forbidden.  God  says.  Let  this  language 
be  no  longer  used ; let  it  be  no  longer  said,  that  such 
a covenant  exists  between  me  and  any  Gentile. 

It  is  urged,  that  though  the  rite  of  circumcision  is  abol- 
ished, the  rite  of  baptism  is  substituted,  as  a token  of  the 
same  import. 

But  if  this  be  true,  should  we  not  expect  to  find  bap- 
tism enjoined,  when  circumcision  is  forbidden  ? Should 
we  not  expect  to  find  this  substitution  clearly  stated  in 
scripture  ? Yet,  in  no  instance  where  circumcision  is 
forbidden,  is  there  any  intimation  of  baptism.  Nor  is 
this  substitution  mentioned  in  any  passage,  through  the 
whole  of  the  New  Testament.  It  is  not  mentioned,  nor 
even  intimated,  in  those  instances,  uhere,  had  it  been 
really  made,  the  circumstances  render  the  omission  per- 
fectly unaccountable.  Notwithstanding  the  Judaizing 
teachers  greatly  complained,  that  circumcision  was  not 
enforced  on  the  Gentiles,  the  substitution  of  baptism, 
which  would  have  furnished  a complete  answer,  was 
never  suggested  by  the  apostles.  Notwithstanding  the 
Galatians  had  imbibed  a belief  of  the  necessity  of  cir- 
cumcision, and  Paul  wrote  an  epistle  expressly  to  cor- 
rect their  mistake,  yet,  throughout  this  epistle,  no  dis- 
tant intimation  is  given  of  the  very  thing,  which  must 
have  completely  satisfied  their  minds,  and  silenced  all 
opposition. 

On  the  contrarj^  so  far  were  the  Jewish  converts  from 
believing  in  this  substitution,  that  even  after  they  were 
commanded  to  be  bai)tized  themselves,  though  already 
circumcised,  they  continued,  under  the  direction  of  the 
apostles,  to  circumcise  their  children.  The  elders  at 
Jerusalem  said  to  Paul,  The  Jews  that  are  zealous  of  the 
law,  “ are  informed  of  thee,  that  thou  teachest  all  the 
Jews,  which  arc  among  the  Gentiles,  to  forsake  Moses, 
saying,  that  they  ought  not  to  circumcise  their  children, 
neither  to  tvalk  after  the  customs. — Do,  tlierefore,  this 


45 


that  we  say  to  thee, — that  all  may  htcnv,  that  those  thin^Sy 
whereof  they  are  informed  concerning  thee,  are  nothing.'*'* 

But  as  the  substitution  of  baptism  in  the  place  of 
circumcision  is  generally  considered  absolutely  essen- 
tial to  the  Poedobaptist  cause,  you  will  naturally  pre- 
sume, that  though  the  scripture  is  silent  on  the  subject, 
and  though  facts  recorded  in  scripture  are  adverse  to 
the  supposition,  still  something  plausible  can  be  urged 
in  its  favour.  Let  me,  therefore,  present  to  your  view, 
accompanied  with  a few  remarks,  the  four  arguments, 
Tvhich  a late  distinguished  writer  has  advanced,  in  proof 
of  this  substitution.* 

“ 1.  Baptism  is  now,  as  circumcision  anciendy  was,  an 
instituted  pre-requisite  to  a regular  standing  in  the 
visible  church.” 

Not  to  question  the  propriety  of  calling  the  Jetvish 
and  Christian  churches  collectively  the  visible  church, 
it  is  sufficient  here  to  observe,  that  circumcision  was 
not  pre-requisite  to  a regular  standing  in  the  church ; 
otherwise,  females  ^vere  not  regular  members. 

“ 2.  Baptism,  under  the  present  dispensation,  is  of 
the  same  significance,  with  circumcision  under  the  an- 
cient.” “ As  circumcision  signified  the  renovation  of 
the  heart,  or  regeneration  ; so  baptism  signifies  the  same 
thing.” 

But  did  circumcision,  as  it  was  commanded  to  be  ad- 
ministered among  the  Jews,  signify  that  the  subject  was 
regenerated  ? Siu*ely  not. 

In  all  languages,  terms  which  literally  denote  sen- 
sible  objects,  are  sometimes  figuratively  used  to  con- 
vey ideas  of  spiritual  objects.  But  we  do  not  infer, 
that  the  former  objects  are  signs  of  the  latter.  The 
term  heart,  which  literall5’^  denotes  a part  of  the  body, 
is  figuratively  used,  to  denote  the  affections  or  the 
mind.  But  we  do  not  infer,  that  the  former  is  a sign 
of  the  latter.  Circumcision,  in  the  literal  acceptation, 
separated  the  Jews  from  the  Gentile  world,  and  brought 

* Acts.  xxi.  20 — 24. 

* Dr.  Worcester,  Letters  to  JDr.  Baldwin,  Let.  xvi. 


46 


them  into  a state  of  relative  holiness.  Hence  the  term 
was  figuratively  used,  to  signify  moral  separation  from 
the  world,  and  real  holiness  of  heart.  But  it  is  pre- 
posterous  to  infer,  from  this  figurative  use  of  the  word, 
that  circumcision  signified  regeneration. 

Admitting,  however,  that  circumcision  and  baptism 
are  both  significant  of,  regeneration,  it  does  not  follow, 
that  the  general  significance  of  the  two  ordinances  is  the 
same,  because  there  is  a similarity  of  significance  in 
one  particular.  Circumcision  chiefly  signified,  that  the 
subject  was  interested  in  that  covenant,  which  God 
made  with  Abraham,  and  of  which  he  expressly  declar- 
ed this  ordinance  to  be  the  token.  Baptism  is  repre- 
sented, as  an  act  of  worship,  by  which  the  baptized 
profess  the  religion  of  Christ,  and  signify  their  fellow- 
ship with  Christ,  in  death  and  resurrection,  and  their 
being  washed  from  sin.  How  different  the  leading  im- 
port of  the  two  ordinances  ! 

“ 3.  Baptism,  under  the  present  dispensation,  is  a 
seal  of  the  same  thing,  of  which  circumcision  was  a seal 
under  the  ancient.  We  have  the  express  declaration  of 
tlie  apostle,  that  circumcision  was  a seal  of  the  right- 
eousness of  faith.” — “ Of  the  same  righteousness  of 
faith,  baptism  is  now  also  a seal.” 

God  gave  Abraham  the  sign  of  circumcision,  and  thus 
sealed  the  righteousness  of  the  faith,  which  he  had  in  un- 
circumcision. But  the  perjormance  of  this  rite,  though  it 
might  seal  or  attest  the  faith  of  an  adult  subject,  could 
not  attest  the  righteousness  of  his  faith ; much  less 
could  it  attest  the  righteousness  of  their  faith,  who  nev- 
er exercised  any  faith.  Tliat  the  administration  of  bap- 
tism can  attest  the  righteousness  of  faith,  is  equally  im- 
possible. And  that  baptism  is  an  attestation  from  God 
of  the  rightcousticss  of  faith,  has  been  scarcely  advanced, 
much  less  proved. 

“ 4.  That  baptism  has  come  in  tlie  place  of  circum- 
cision, we  arc  decisively  taught,  by  the  apostle,  in  Col.  ii. 
10 — 13.  And  ye  are  complete  in  him,  which  is  the  head 
of  all  princiixility  and  power,  lu  whom  also  ye  are  cir- 


47 


ciimcised,  with  the  circumcision  mode  without  hand<?,  in 
putting  off  the  body  of  the  sins  of  the  flesh,  by  the  cir- 
cumcision  of  Christ : buried  with  him  in  baptism,  where- 
in also  ye  are  risen  with  him,  through  the  faith  of  the 
operation  of  God,  who  hath  raised  him  from  the  dead. 
And  j^ou,  being  dead  in  your  sins,  and  the  uncircum- 
cision of  your  flesh,  hath  he  quickened  together  with  him.” 
In  this  passage,  we  are  taught,  that  the  Colossians 
were  spiritually  circumcised,  in  putting  off  the  body  of 
the  sins  of  the  flesh,  and  spiritually  baptized,  by  being 
buried  with  Christ,  and  being  raised  to  newness  of  life.* 
Thus  they  are  represented,  as  having  passed  the  whole 
process  of  death,  burial  and  resurrection.  The  death, 
the  putting  off'  of  the  body,  is  called  circumcision,  in  al- 
lusion to  the  nature  of  that  rite  ; and  the  burial  and  res- 
urrection are  fitly  represented  in  tlie  ordiiunce  of  bap- 
tism or  immersion.  But  though  some  other  explanation 
of  the  passage  should  be  adopted,  is  it  possible,  since  the 
apostle  is  speaking  of  spiritual  circumcision  and  spiritual 
baptism,  both  of  which  had  been  received  by  the  Colos- 
sians, to  make  out  an  inference,  that  external  baptism 
hus  come  in  the  place  of  external  circumcision? 

A view  of  these  four  arguments  may  serve  to  convince 
you,  how  little  can  be  said  in  support  of  a point,  which, 
on  account  of  its  importance  in  the  Poedobaptist  sys- 
tem, demands  the  fairest  and  most  invincible  proof ; 
and  may  lead  you  to  adopt  tlK'  sentiment,  contained  in 
the  following  words  of  Dr.  Emmons:  “Can  we  justly 
conclude,  that  it  is  the  duty  of  believers  now  lo  circum- 
cise their  children,  or  even  to  baptize  them,  because  it 
was  once  their  duty  to  circumcise  them  ? The  truth 
is,  we  must  learn  the  peculiar  duties  of  believers,  un- 
der the  present  dispensation  of  tlie  covenant  of  grace, 
from  the  dispensation  itself,  which  enjoins  all  the  peculiar 
duties  which  belong  to  zi?.”t 

* See  Rom.  vi.  4. 

t Dissertation  on  the  Qualifications /or  the  Christian  sacraments. 
Chap.  ii.  Sect,  v. 


48 


By  many  Poedobaptist  nTiters,  especially  by  the  ad- 
vocates of  national  churches,  the  argument  from  the 
Abrahamic  or  Jewish  dispensation,  is  stated  in  a manner 
somewhat  different  from  that  which  we  have  been  con- 
sidering. 

Infants^  they  say,  were  constituted  members  of  the  vis- 
ible church  ; they  have  never  been  excluded  from  the 
church,  and,  consequently,  are  now  members. 

This  argument,  when  analyzed,  stands  thus : Infants 
were  constituted  members  of  the  Abrahamic  or  Jewish 
church ; they  were  never  excluded  from  this  church ; 
therefore,  they  are  members  of  the  Christian  church.  Is 
this  conclusive?  The  whole  strength  of  the  argument 
rests  in  the  supposition,  that  the  Christian  church  is  the 
same  with  the  Abrahamic  or  Jewish.  How  can  this  be 
proved  ? 

It  cannot  be  proved,  by  showing,  that  they  are  found- 
ed on  the  same  covenant ; for  there  is  no  evidence,  that 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  is  the  same  with  tlie  cov- 
enant of  grace. 

Nor  can  it  be  proved,  by  adducing  promises  and 
prophecies  of  the  perpetuit}’^  of  Zion,  and  her  final  tri- 
umph and  glory.  Some  of  these  promises  and  proph- 
ecies relate  to  the  final  conversion  and  restoration  of  the 
Jewish  people.  Others  evidently  belong  to  the  true 
church  ; to  that  Zion,  which  includes  all  the  saints,  who 
existed  before  the  organization  of  a visible  church,  and 
all  the  truly  pious,  whether  they  have  belonged  to  any 
organized  visible  church  or  not.  No  one  denies  the 
perpetuity  and  identity  of  the  church  of  God,  to  which 
the  promises  and  prophecies  belong.  In  order  to  make 
the  application  of  these  promises  and  prophecies  bear 
on  the  subject,  it  is  necessary  to  show,  tliat  they  belong 
not  to  that  church,  which  commenced  in  the  ixirsons  of 
our  first  parents,  and  will  continue  to  the  end  of  the  tvorld, 
but  to  a particular  organized  body,  which  commenced  in 
the  family  of  Abraham. 

Nor  can  the  point  be  proved,  from  the  apostle’s  dis- 
course, concerning  the  olive  tree,  from  wliich  the  Jews, 


49 


the  natural  branches,  were  broken  off,  and  into  vvliich 
the  believing  Gentiles  were  ingrafted  ;*  unless  it  be 
shown,  that  the  oli^'e  tre^  represents  that  particular  or- 
ganized body,  the  Abrahamic  or  Jewish  church,  or  in 
the  words  of  Dr.  Austin,  “ the  society  of  Israel.” 

It  is  evident,  that  the  olive  tree  cannot  represent  this 
body  or  society,  as  existing  under  the  Sinai  law,  for 
Gentile  believers  arc  not  introduced  into  a similar  state. 
And  is  it  not  eqiuUly  evident,  that,  for  a similar  reason, 
it  cannot  represent  this  body  or  society,  as  founded  on 
the  covenant  of  circumcision  ? 'Fhe  ingrafted  branches 
are  represented,  as  partaking  of  the  root  and  fatness  of 
the  olive  tree.  But  whatever  blessings  Gentile  believ- 
ers enjoy,  they  do  not  enjoy  the  peculiar  blessings,  se- 
cured in  the  covenant  of  circumcision.  They  do  not 
inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  though  that  was  one  distinct, 
principal  promise,  in  this  covenant.  Nor  can  it  be  ad- 
mitted, that  they  enjoy  the  favour  of  God,  in  that  sense, 
and  in  that  only,  in  which  it  was  engaged  to  the  poster- 
ity of  Abraham. t The  olive  tree  cannot,  therefore, 
represent  the  community  of  Israel,  as  founded  on  the 
covenant  of  circumcision  ; nor,  for  the  same  reason,  can 
it  represent  the  covenant  itself. 

Christ  said  to  his  disciples,  “ I am  the  true  vine,  and 
my  Father  is  the  husbandman.  Every  branch  in  me^  that 
* Rom.  xi.  l6 — 24. 

t Dr.  Austin.  “The  reinsertion  of  these  broken  off  branches 
into  the  good  olive  tree  (alluding  to  the  restoration  of  the  Jews,j 
can  mean  no  less  than  their  occupying  the  place,  which  they  held, 
before  they  were  broken  off.  Occupying  this  place,  they  neces- 
sarily partake  of  the  fatness  of  the  olive  tree.  This  is  the  blessing, 
the  entire  blessing  secured  in  the  promise.  But  the  land  of  Ca- 
naan is  expressly  a part  of  this  blessing.  T heir  beiiig  brought 
back  then  under  the  cov  enant,  must  necessaril  v restore  them  to  the 
enjoyment  of  this  land.”  View  of  the  Economy  of  the  Church  of 
God,  Chap.  xiv.  p.  305. 

If  this  reasoning  be  correct,  it  follows,  that  Gentile  believers  can- 
not be  considered  as  ingrafted  into  the  olive  tree,  because  they  do 
not  inherit  the  land  of  Canaan,  which  is  expressiv  apart  of  the 
blessing,  secured  in  the  promise,  and  represented  by  the  fatness 
of  the  olive. 


G 


50 


bear'eth  not  fruit,  he  taketh  away.'^*  This  may  suggest 
the  proper  interpretation  of  the  symbolical  language 
of  the  apostle.  The  olive  tree  may  represent  the  Mes- 
siah, as  presented  in  the  gospel  promise  made  to  Abra- 
ham, and  in  subsequent  promises,  in  which  all  the 
pious  cordially  rested,  and  in  which  the  Jews,  as  a na- 
tion, professed  to  rest.  They  are  called  natural  branch- 
es, conformably  to  the  language  of  the  evangelist,  “ He 
came  unto  his  own,  and  his  own  received  him  not.”f  The 
natural  branches  were  unfruitful,  and,  therefore,  ac- 
cording to  the  prediction  of  Christ,  were  taken  away  ; 
or,  in  the  style  of  the  apostle,  because  of  unbelief,  they 
were  broken  off ; and  in  their  place,  the  believing  Gen- 
tiles were  ingrafted,  and  now  partake  of  the  root  and 
fatJiess  of  the  olive  tree,  the  riches  of  grace  in  Jesus 
Christ. 

Nor  can  it  be  proved,  that  the  churches  are  the  same, 
by  showing,  that  they  are  alike  in  some  respects.  Much 
labour  has  been  expended,  in  exhibiting  those  points, 
in  which  the  churches  are  alike.  But,  surely,  two  things 
may  be  alike  in  many  respects,  and  still  not  be  the 
same.  It  is  granted,  that  they  are  not  alike  in  all  res- 
pects. The  very  point,  therefore,  necessary  to  be  prov- 
ed, is  that  they  are  alike  in  that  respect,  which  con- 
cerns the  question.  To  ascertain,  whether  two  institu- 
tions are  alike  in  any  one  respect,  w'c  must  form  an  idea 
of  each,  from  all  the  information  we  can  obtain,  and  com- 
pare the  ideas. 

On  examining  the  scriptures,  with  regard  to  the 
Jewish  church,  we  find,  that  it  was  a select  people,  com- 
posed chiefly  of  the  posterity  of  Abraham,  in  the  line 
of  Isaac  and  Jacob.  To  be  descended  from  Abraham, 
in  this  line,  was  sufficient  to  introduce  tlic  subject  into 
the  Jewish  church.  Persons  of  Gentile  extraction  also, 
Avho  were  purchased  by  Jews,  or  wished  to  enjoy  the 
privileges  of  Jews,  could  be  introduced  into  this  church, 

* Jolm  XV.  1,  2. 


j-  John  i.  1 1. 


51 


by  circumcision.*  Whether  any  other  requisite  to 
admission  was  appointed  by  God,  vve  are  not  informed. 
This  church  continued  nearly  two  thousand  years.  At 
length,  Christ  came,  and  according  to  ancient  proph- 
ecies, set  up  his  kingdom  in  the  world.f  He  abolished 
the  distinction,  which  had  so  long  subsisted  between 
the  posterity  of  Abraham  and  other  nations,  and  cither 
in  person,  or  by  his  Spirit,  selected  his  followers  from 
botli  Jews  and  Gentiles,  thus  making  “ in  himself,  of 
twain,  one  nexv 

On  examining  the  scriptures,  with  regard  to  this 
new  kingdom,  the  Christian  church,  we  learn,  from  the 
formation  of  particular  churches,  and  the  instructions 
addressed  to  the  members,  as  well  as  from  addresses 
made  to  both  Jews  and  Gentiles,  who  were  without, 
diat  it  is  a society,  composed  of  select  individuals,  pro- 
fessing faith  in  Christ.  Credible  evidence  of  piety  is 
the  requisite  to  admission.  Whether  natural  descent, 
or  any  religious  rite,  is  sufficient  to  introduce  the  sub- 
ject into  this  church,  \ve  are  not  informed.  W’^e  ha^  e, 
therefore,  no  evidence,  that,  in  that  respect,  which  con- 
cerns the  question  before  us,  the  two  churches  arc  alike. 

It  has,  however,  been  supposed,  that  the  churcli  mem- 
bership of  infants  is  supported  in  the  follo^ving  pas- 
sage : “ Suffer  little  children,  and  forbid  them  not,  to 
come  unto  me  ; for  of  such  is  the  kingdom  of  hecweny\ 

In  the  gospels  of  Mark  and  Luke,  it  follows,  “ Who- 
soever shall  not  receive  the  kingdom  of  God,  as  a lit- 
tie  child,  he  shall  notenter  therein. ”||  We  cannot  sup- 
pose, that  our  Lord  used  words,  in  such  different  senses, 
in  the  same  speech,  as  would  unavoidably  mislead 
his  hearers.  In  the  latter  passage,  the  kingdom  of  God 
denotes  heaven,  and  to  receive  the  kingdom,  as  a little 
child,  is  to  receive  it,  with  the  humility  and  docile  dis- 
position, which  characterize  children.  This  passage 
explains  the  former.  Of  such,  says  Christ,  is  the  king- 

♦ Exod.  xii.  44 — 49.  f Dan.  ii.  44.  J Eph.  ii.  15. 

§ Matt.  six.  14.  II  Mark  x.  15,  & Luke  xviii.  17. 


52 


dom  of  heaven.  Docs  he  mean,  of  such  in  age  and  size, 
of  such  in  the  moral  temper  of  heart,  or  of  such  in  hu- 
mility and  docility  of  disposition  ? His  subsequent  remark 
determines  in  favour  of  the  latter  meaning.  Nor  is  this 
a singular  application  of  the  phrase.  On  another  oc- 
casion, he  says,  “ Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become 
as  little  children,  ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom 
of  heaven.”^  He  certainly  does  not  mean.  Except  ye 
become  as  little  children,  in  age  and  size,  but  in  humil- 
ity ; for  he  immediately  adds,  “ 'W'^hosoever,  therefore, 
shall  humble  hbnself,  as  this  little  child, 

The  following  passage  also  has  been  supposed  to  fa- 
’vour  the  church  membership  of  infants  : “ For  the  unbe- 
lieving husband  is  sanctilied  by  the  wife,  and  the  unbe- 
lieving wife  is  sanctified  by  the  husband  ; else  were  your 
children  unclean  ; but  now  are  they  holyd’X 
'Fhe  holiness  ascribed  to  the  children,  cannot  be  mor- 
al holiness,  for  it  is  ascribed  to  the  unbelieving  par- 
ent also.  Nor  can  it  be  ceremonial  or  federal  holiness, 
securing  a title  to  church  membership,  or  any  church 
privilege  ; for  though  it  is  ascribed  to  the  unbelieving 
parent,  he  is  not  considered  a member  of  the  church, 
or  entitled  to  any  church  privilege.  Nor  is  this  inter- 
pretation consistent  ^vith  the  apostle’s  reasoning.  It 
appears,  that  the  Corinthians  had  inquired  of  the  apos- 
tle whether  it  was  lawful  for  believers,  who  were  mar- 
ried to  unbelievers,  to  continue  the  marriage  connexion. 
The  apostle  determines,  that  it  is  lawful ; for,  says  he, 
the  unbeliever  is  sanctified  by  the  believer,  that  is,  as 
• Matt,  xviii.  3. 

t Matt.  Suffer  little  children.  Mark.  Suffer  the  little  children. 
I.iike.  Suffer  little  children.  It  should,  however,  be  observed, 
that,  in  the  origi«a!,  the  expression  is  the  same  in  each  gospel. 
Tlie  article  is  uniformly  inserted  ; though,  by  our  translators, 
it  is  omitted,  in  tl.e  gospels  of  Matthew  and  Luke.  Without  the 
article,  the  words  of  Christ  seem  to  form  a general  direction,  con- 
cerning little  children;  but  with  the  article,  they  evidently  form 
a particular  direction,  concerning  those  children,  whose  approach 
the  disciples  were  preventing. 

J I Cor.  vii,  14, 


53 


“every  creature  of  God  is  good,  and  nothing  to  he 
refused,  if  it  be  received  with  thanksgiving;  for  it  is 
sanctified  by  the  word  of  God  and  prayer.”*  In  this 
sense,  the  unbeliever  is  sanctified,  so  that  it  is  lawful 
for  the  parties  to  dwell  together.  Now  if  it  was  not 
lawful  to  dwell  together,  your  children  would,  of  con- 
sequence, be  unclean.  But  the}'  are  not  unclean.  There- 
fore, you  may  be  satisfied,  that  your  cohabitation  is 
lawful  marriage.  But  to  urge  the  church  membership 
of  children,  or  their  title  to  any  church  privilege,  as 
proof,  that  the  unbeliever  is  sanctified  to  the  believer, 
so  that  it  is  lawful  for  them  to  dwell  together,  is  quite 
irrelevant.”! 

The  question  returns.  Is  there  any  evidence,  that 
the  Jewish  church  and  the  Christian  church  are  the  same  ? 
or  that  the  children  of  believers  are  memliers  of  tlie 
Christian  church,  as  the  children  of  Jews  were  members 
of  the  Jewish  church  ? We  cannot  believe  without  evi- 
dence. And  clear  evidence  is  requisite  to  support  a sen- 
timent, which  counteracts  the  first  impressions  we  re- 
ceive from  the  word  of  God ; still  clearer,  to  support  a 
sentiment,  fraught  with  consequences  embarrassing  and 
dangerous. 

Are  we  ready  to  acknowledge  the  children  of  believ- 
ers, as  members  of  the  church,  in  the  same  sense,  as 
the  children  of  Jews  were  members  of  the  Jeufish 
church  ? Are  we  ready  to  acknowledge  their  right  to 
the  Lord’s  supper,  as  soon,  at  least,  as  they  are  capa- 
* 1 Tim.  iv.  4,  5. 

f The  interpretation  here  adopted,  is  strengthened  by  the  use 
of  the  word  in  1 Thes.  iv.  3,  4,  7,  and  approved  by  Am- 

BROSK,  who  says,  “ The  children  are  holy,  because  they  are  born  of 
lawful  marriage,”  MuscuLUS  and  Melancthon,  in  Mr.  Tombes’ 
Exercitation,\>.  11,  12, 13;  Camerarius,  Vatabeus  and  Cam- 
ERO,  in  loc.  Velthuysios,  Opera-,  Tom.  i.  p.  801  ; Suares  and 
Vasques,  apud  Chamieri  Panstrat.  Tom.  iv.  L.  v.  C.  x.  § 50  ; 
Dietericus,  apud  Wolfii  Cura,  in  loc.  See  also  Dr.  Mack- 
night,  who  says,  “ I,  therefore,  think  with  Eisner,  that  the  words, 
in  this  verse,  have  neither  a federal  nor  a moral  meaning,  but  are 
used  in  the  idiom  of  the  Hebrews,”  &c.  Translation  of  the  Apost. 
Epist,  Note  on  1 Cor.  vii,  14. 


54 


ble  of  discerning  the  Lord’s  body  ? and  the  consequent 
obligation  of  the  church,  to  require  their  attendance, 
and  to  discipline  them,  if  they  neglect  to  attend  ? To 
consider  and  treat  them,  as  members  of  the  church,  un- 
til formally  excluded  ; and  to  consider  and  treat  them, 
as  not  members,  until  formally  admitted,  are  very  dif- 
ferent things.  The  latter  is  the  uniform  practice  of  pro- 
testant  dissenters;  the  former  only  is  consistent  with 
the  principle,  that  the  children  of  believers  are  church 
members.  But  it  most  evidently  tends  to  confound  the 
church  with  the  world,  and,  it  is  to  be  feared,  is  the 
most  pernicious  practice  that  ever  infested  and  laid 
waste  the  vineyard  of  the  Lord. 

An  attempt  has  been  sometimes  made,  to  support 
the  practice  of  infant  baptism,  on  tlie  ground  of  the  Jew- 
ish proselyte  baptism.  The  argument  is  this — The  Jews 
were  hi  the  habit  of  receiving  proselytes,  both  adults 
and  infants,  by  baptism,  as  well  as  by  circumcision, 
Christ  and  his  apostles  being  acquainted  witli  this 
practice,  when  he  commanded  tliem,  in  general  terms^ 
to  teach  all  nations,  baptizing  them,  he  must  have  in- 
tended, and  they  must  have  understood  him  to  intend, 
tliat  baptism  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed,  the 
baptism  of  infants  as  well  as  adults. 

This  argument  would  have  some  force,  were  there  any 
sufficient  evidence,  that  the  Jew's,  in  the  time  of  Christ, 
or  in  any  preceding  age,  admitted  proselytes  by  bap- 
tism. But  of  this,  no  evidence  has  been  produced. 
I'liere  is  no  intimation  of  proselyte  baptism,  in  the  Old 
Testament,  or  in  the  apochrjqjhal  books,  or  in  tlic  New 
Testament,  or  in  any  writings  soon  after  the  time  of  Christ 
(as  the  w'orks  of  Philo,  the  Jew,  and  of  Josephus,  who 
both  wrote  concerning  tlie  laws  and  customs  of  tlie 
Jews,)  or  in  the  Chaldee  Paraphrases,  or  in  the  works 
of  the  Christian  fathers,  for  the  first  three  or  four  cen- 
turies. The  first  mention  of  proselyte  baptism  is  in 
the  Jewish  Talmuds,  which  were  composed  between 
the  second  and  fifth  centuries  ; and  the  manner,  in  which 


55 


it  is  mentioned  in  the  Talmuds,  shows,  that  it  was  then 
a novel  and  questionable  practice. 

Dr.  J ENNiNGS.  “ But  after  all,  it  remains  to  be  prov- 
ed, not  only  that  Christian  baptism  was  instituted  in  the 
room  of  proselyte  baptism ; but  that  the  Jews  had  any 
such  baptism,  in  oiw  Saviour’s  time.  The  eiuliest  ac- 
counts we  have  of  it,  arc  in  the  Mishna  and  Gcmara ; 
the  former  compiled,  as  the  Jews  assert,  by  Rabbi  Juda, 
in  the  second  century  ; though  learned  men,  in  gencnil, 
bring  it  several  centuries  lower;  tlic  latter,  not  till  the 
seventh  century.  There  is  not  a word  of  it  in  Philo, 
nor  yet  in  Josephus,  though  he  gives  an  account  of  the 
proselyting  of  the  Idumeans,  by  H^Tcanus.”* 

Dr.  Owen.  “ The  institution  of  the  rite  of  baptism  is 
no  where  mentioned,  in  the  Old  Testament.  There  is 
no  example  of  it,  in  those  ancient  records ; nor  was  it 
ever  used,  in  the  admission  of  proselytes,  while  the  Jew- 
ish church  continued.  No  mention  of  it  occurs,  in  Plii- 
lo,  in  Josephus,  in  Jesus,  the  son  of  Sirach,  nor  in  the 
Evangelical  History.  This  Rabbinical  opinion,  there- 
fore, owes  its  rise  to  the  Tanneroe,  or  Ante-Mishnical 
doctors,  after  tlie  destruction  of  their  city. — The  opin- 
ion of  some  learned  men,  tlierefore,  about  the  transfer- 
ring of  a Jewish  baptismal  rite  (which,  in  reality,  did 
not  then  exist,)  by  the  Lord  Jesus,  for  tlie  use  of  his 
disciples,  is  destitute  of  all  probability. 

Dr.  Lardner.  “As  for  the  baptism  of  Jewish  pros- 
elytes, I take  it  to  be  a mere  fiction  of  the  Rabbins,  by 
whom  we  have  suffered  ourselves  to  be  imposed  upon.”j; 

On  the  supposition,  that  tlie  command  of  Christ  to 
teach,  did  not  limit  his  subsequent  command,  to  such 
as  were  taught,  it  is,  doubtless,  fair  reasoning,  that,  when 
Christ,  in  general  terms,  commanded  his  apostles  to  bap- 
tize, he  must  have  intended,  and  they  must  have  under- 

* Jewish  Antiq.  Vol.  1.  p.  136. 
t Theologoumena,  L.  v.  Digress,  iv. 

J Letters  to  and  from  Dr.  Doddridge,  Let.  Ixxxix.  p.  275. 
But  fora  full  examination  of  the  subject,  see  Dr.  Gill’s  Disser^ 
tation  concerning  tixe  Baptism  of  Jewish  Proselytes. 


56 


stood  him  to  intend,  that  kind  of  baptism  to  \vhich  they 
had  been  accustomed.  So  far  the  argument  is  good.  But 
there  is  no  evidence,  that  the  baptism,  to  which  they  had 
been  accustomed,  was  proselyte  baptism  of  adults  and 
infants.  To  what  kind  of  baptism,  then,  had  they  been 
accustomed  ? We  know  of  none,  but  the  baptism  of  John. 
But  John  did  not  baptize  infants.  His  baptism  was  a 
baptism  of  repentance,  and  acknowledgment  of  Him  that 
was  to  come,  and,  therefore,  a baptism  of  adults  only. 
This  was  the  baptism,  which  the  disciples  of  Jesus  ad- 
ministered, in  the  beginning  of  his  ministry,  as  it  is  writ- 
ten, “ that  Jesus  made  and  baptized  more  disciples  than 
John ; though  Jesus  himself  baptized  not,  but  his  disci- 
ples.”^ The  baptism  of  adults  was  that,  to  which  alone 
they  had  been  accustomed  ; and  therefore,  if  Christ,  in 
general  terms,  commanded  his  apostles  to  baptize,  he 
must  have  intended,  and  they  must  have  understood  him 
to  intend,  the  baptism  of  adults  only. 

The  following  quotations  present  to  our  view  the 
last  ground  to  which  Poedobaptists  resort. 

Bos  SUET,  Bishop  of  Meaux.  “ Experience  has  shomi 
that  all  the  attempts  of  the  Reformed  to  confound  the 
Anabaptists,  by  the  scripture,  have  l^een  tveak ; and, 
therefore,  they  are,  at  last,  obliged  to  allege  to  them  the 
practice  of  the  church.'*'’^ 

Mr.  Chambers.  “ As  none,  but  adults,  are  capable  of 
believing,  they”  (the  German  Baptists)  “argued,  tliat 
no  others  are  capable  of  baptism ; especially,  as  there 
is  no  passage,  in  all  the  New  Testament,  where  the  bap- 
tism of  infants  is  clearly  enjoined.  Calvin,  and  other 
writers  against  them,  are  pretty  much  embarrassed,  to 
answer  this  argument ; and  are  obliged  to  have  recourse 
to  tradition,  and  the  practice  of  the  primitive  church  ''* \ 

Also,  the  Oxford  Divines,  in  a convocation,  held  one 
thousand,  six  hundred  and  forty  seven,  acknowledged, 
“that,  without  the  consentaneous  judgment  of  the  uni- 

* John  iv.  1,2.  t In  Steimett's  Answer  to  Russen,p.  184. 

* Cyclopedia,  Art.  Anabaptists. 


/ 


57 


versal  church,  they  should  be  at  a loss,  when  they  are 
called  upon  for  proof,  in  the  point  of  infant  baptism.”* 

What,  then,  is  the  evidence  from  antiquity,  in  favour 
of  infant  baptism  ? 

It  has  been  already  stated,  that  the  writers  of  the  New 
Testament  are  silent  on  this  subject,  whether  recording 
the  formation  of  the  primitive  churches,  or  addressing 
epistles  to  those  churches.  They  frequently  mention  the 
baptism  of  believers  ; but  preserve  a profound  silence  on 
tlie  baptism  of  infants. 

The  Christian  writers  of  the  first  century,  w'ho  imme- 
diately sueceeded  the  apostles,  Barnabas,  Hennas,  Cle- 
mens Romanus,  Ignatius  and  Polycarp,  usually  called, 
by  way  of  distinction,  apostolical  fathers^  frequently  men- 
tion the  ba.ptism  of  believers;  but,  like  the  inspired 
penmen,  are  entirely  silent  on  the  subject  of  infant  bap- 
tism. 

The  Christian  ^vriters  of  the  second  century’,  Justin 
Martyr,  Athenagoras,  Theophilus  of  Antioch,  Tatian, 
Irenoeus  and  Clemens  Alexandrinus,  frequently  men- 
tion the  baptism  of  believers  ; but,  like  the  inspired  pen- 
men, and  the  apostolical  fathers,  never  mention  infant 
baptism. 

There  is,  indeed,  in  the  writings  of  Irenoeus,  one  pas- 
sage, which  has  been  adduced  in  proof  of  this  practice  : 
“Christ  passed  through  all  the  ages  of  man,  that  he 
might  save  all  by  himself,  that  is,  all  who,  by  him,  are 
regenerated  to  God,  infants,  and  little  ones,  and  chil- 
dren, and  youths,  and  persons  advanced  in  age.”f 

As  the  w’ord  translated  regenerated^  sometimes,  in  the 
writings  of  the  Christian  fathers,  denotes  baptism^  some 
have  supposed,  that,  in  this  passage,  it  may  be  proper- 
ly translated  baptized.  The  passage  tvould  then  sUmd, 
Christ  came  to  save  all  by  himself,  that  is,  all  viho.,  by 
him^  are  baptized  to  God^ 

H 

* In  Lawson’s  Bnptismalogia,  p.  Il6. 
t Contra  Haeres.  L,  ii.  C,  xxii. 


58 


There  are  two  considerations,  which  forbid  this 
translation.  First : It  makes  the  passage  unintelligible. 
It  is  intelligible,  that  all,  who  are  saved,  are  regenerated 
by  Christ ; but  what  possible  meaning  can  be  attached 
to  the  assertion,  that  all,  who  are  saved,  are  baptized 
by  Christ  to  God?  On  what  principle  of  interj^retation  is 
it  justifiable,  to  reject  the  natural,  common  meaning  of 
a word,  when,  at  the  same  time,  it  perfectly  accords 
with  the  scope  of  the  passage,  and  to  adopt  a figurative 
meaning,  which  renders  the  passage  unintelligible  ’? 

Secondly  : This  interpretation  will  not  accord  with 
the  strain  of  the  writer’s  discourse ; or,  in  the  words  of 
Le  Clerc,  “ we  see  nothing  here  concerning  baptism  ; 
nor  is  there  any  thing  relating  to  it,  in  the  immediately 
preceding  or  following  words.  ' 

Now  this  testimony,  uncertain  as  it  must  be  consider- 
ed, at  the  best,  and  given  at  the  close  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, is  the  first  testimony  that  is  insisted  on  by  learned 
Poedobaptists.  Dr.  Wall  admits,  “ This  is  the  first  ex- 
press mention  we  have  met  with  of  infants  baptized.”! 
But  though  Dr.  Wall  calls  it  express  mention,  it  is  gen- 
erally given  up,  as  very  uncertain. f 

Monthly  Review.  “ The  authorities  produced,  are 
Justin  Martyr  and  IrencEUS,  in  the  second  century. — 
With  respect  to  the  testimony  of  Justin,  it  requires  very 
considerable  ingenuity,  to  make  it,  in  any  view,  an  ar- 
gument in  favour  of  infant  baptism.  There  is  a pas- 
sage in  Irenoeus  more  to  the  purpose ; but  the  passage 
is  e(iuivocaV'\ 

The  first  Christian  writer,  in  the  beginning  of  the 
third  century,  Tertullian  of  Carthage,  opposed  the  bap- 
tism of  infants,  which,  in  the  words  of  Professor  Vene- 
ma,  “ he  certainly  would  not  have  done,  if  it  had  been 
a tradition,  and  a public  custom  of  the  church,  seeing 
he  was  very  tenacious  of  traditions ; nor  had  it  been  a 

* Hist.  Eccles.  Secul.  ii.  Ann.  180.  § 33.  p.  778. 
f Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  Part.  i.  C.  iii.  p.  lt>. 

:J;  See  particular! v,  Ven  emw  Hist.  Eccles.  Tom.  iii.  Secul.  ii.  § lOf). 

§ I’or  May,  1791.  p.  394. 


59 


tradition,  would  he  ha^'e  fliilcd  to  mention  it.”*-  Ills 
treatment  of  this  subject  leads  us  to  conclude,  that  in- 
fant baptism  was  then  a novel  practice,  just  beginning, 
and  apiirovcd  by  very  few'.  His  words,  as  ti'anslatcd  by 
that  learned  Poedobaptist,  Du  Pin,  are  as  follow  s : — 

“ Jesus  Christ  says  indeed,  ‘ Hinder  not  little  children 
from  coming  to  me but  that  they  should  come  to  him, 
as  soon  as  they  are  ad^'anced  in  years,  as  soon  as  they 
have  learnt  their  religion,  nhen  they  may  be  taught 
whither  diey  are  going,  Avhen  they  are  become  Chris- 
tians, when  they  begin  to  be  able  to  know  Jesus  Christ. 
A\diat  is  there,  that  Khould  compel  this  innocent  age 
to  receive  baptism  ? And  since  they  are  not  yet  allow- 
ed the  disposal  of  temporal  goods,  is  it  reasonable,  that 
they  should  be  intrusted  with  the  concerns  of  heaven  ?”f 
Se\eral  quotations  concerning  infant  baptism  have 
been  made  from  the  writings  of  Origen,  who  flourished, 
in  the  former  part  of  this  century.  But  his  original 
tvorks  are  not  now  extant.  These  quotations  are  tak- 
en from  a verj'  corrupt  Latin  version,  made  by  Ruffi- 
nus  ; who,  as  Quenstedius  observes,  “ has  used  so  great 
a liberty  (as  he  himself  acknowledges  in  his  prefaces,  and 
for  which  Jerome  reproves  him,)  that  he  retrenched,  add- 
ed, and  altered,  whatever  he  considered  as  deserving 
to  be  cashiered,  added  or  changed ; so  that  the  reader 
is  frequently  uncertain,  whether  he  read  Origen  or  Ruf- 
finus.”f  And  Grotius  also,  concerning  the  sentiments 
of  Origen,  says,  “ Some  things  ascribed  to  him,  were  pen- 
ned by  an  uncertain  author,  and  some  things  are  inter- 
polated.— What  Origen  thought  about  the  final  punish- 
ment of  the  wicked,  is  difficult  from  his  writings  to  be 
asserted,  all  things  are  so  inteq^olated  by  Ruffinus.”|| 
The  only  passage  from  the  Greek  of  Origen,  which  is 
produced  in  proof  of  this  practice,  contains  a clause, 

♦ Hist.  Eccles.  Secul.  ii.  § 108. 
t Lib.  de  Baptismo,  C.  xviii ; in  Du  Pin’s  i/wf.  Eccles.  Writ- 
ers, Cent.  iii.  p.  80. 

J Dialog,  de  Patriis  Ulust.  Doct.  Script.  Virorum,  p.  032» 

II  Apud  Poli  Spnops,  ad  Matt.  six.  14  and  xxv.  46. 


60 


which  represents  the  infants,  as  desiring  the  mncere  milk 
of  the  word.  Therefore,  Dr.  Wall  acknowledges,  that 
ihis  does  “ very  much  puzzle  the  cause,  and  make  it 
doubtful,  whether  Origen  be  to  be  there  understood,  of 
infants  in  age,  or  of  such  Christian  men,  as  are  endued 
with  the  innocence  and  simplicity  of  infants.”* 

This  practice,  however,  no  doubt,  commenced  in  the 
latter  part  of  the  second  century,  and  gradually  gained 
ground  in  the  third.  As  the  sentiment  prevailed,  that 
baptism  was  necessary  to  salvation,  parents  became 
more  anxious  to  have  their  children  baptized,  especially 
when  sick  and  in  danger  of  death. 

ViTRiNGA.  “The  ancient  Christian  church,  from  the 
highest  antiquity,  after  the  apostolic  times,  appears  gen- 
erally to  have  thought,  that  baptism  is  absolutely  nec- 
essary for  all  that  would  be  saved  by  the  grace  of  Jesus 
Christ.  It  was,  therefore,  customary  in  the  ancient 
church,  if  infants  were  greatly  afflicted,  and  in  danger 
of  death ; or  if  parents  were  affected  with  a singular 
concern  about  the  salvation  of  their  children,  to  present 
their  infants,  or  children,  in  their  minority,  to  the  bish- 
op, to  be  baptized.  But  if  these  reasons  did  not  urge 
them,  they  thought  it  better,  and  more  for  the  interest 
of  minors,  that  their  baptism  should  be  deferred,  till 
they  arrived  at  a more  advanced  age ; which  custom 
was  not  yet  abolished,  in  the  time  of  Austin,  though  he 
vehemently  urged  the  necessity  of  baptism,  while,  with 
all  his  might,  he  defended  the  doctrines  of  grace  against 
Pelagius.”t 

Salmasius.  “ An  opinion  prevailed,  that  no  one 
could  be  saved,  without  being  baptized ; and  for  that  rea- 
son., the  custom  arose  of  baptizing  infants'''\. 

So  unsettled,  however,  v^as  the  practice  in  Africa, 
in  the  middle  of  the  third  ccnturj%  that  Cyprian,  bishop 
of  Cartilage,  was  unable  to  determine  the  question, 

* Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  Part  1.  p.  32. 

■j*  Observat.  Sac.  Tom.  i.  I..  ii.  C.  vi.  g g. 

Epist,  ad  Justum  Pactum, 


61 


whether  infants  might  be  baptized  before  the  eighth  day, 
without  convening  a council  of  African  bishops.  In  this 
council,  it  was  determined,  that  baptism  need  not  be 
deferred.  And  finallj',  in  the  year  four  hundred  and 
eighteen,  the  Milevitan  council,  at  the  instigation  of 
Austin,  decreed  the  necessity  of  infant  baptism,  in  these 
terms : “ It  is  our  pleasure,  that  whoe\  er  denies,  that 
new  bom  infants  are  to  be  baptized, — let  him  be  ai\a- 
diema.”* 

The  correctness  of  these  statements,  concerning  the 
practice  of  the  primitive  church,  is  confirmed  by  the 
following  testimonies;  tlic  first,  furnished  by  an  apos- 
tle, and  the  rest,  as  usual,  by  Poedobaptist  authors. 

St.  Paul.  “As  many  of  you,  as  have  been  baptized 
into  Clirist,  have  put  on  Christ.  ”f 

* F rom  this  period,  every  century  has  presented  a succession  of 
witnesses  to  the  truth  of  the  Baptist  sentiments,  as  well  as  num- 
berless decrees  of  popes,  and  kings,  and  councils,  denouncing  the 
severest  penalties  on  this  “ pernicious  sect.” 

Cardinal  Hosivs,  President  of  the  Council  of  Trent.  “ If  the 
truth  of  religion  were  to  be  judged  of,  by  the  readiness  and  cheer- 
fulness, which  a man  of  any  sect  shows  in  suffering,  then  the  opin- 
ion and  persuasion  of  no  sect  can  be  truer  or  surer,  than  that  of  the 
Anabaptists  ; since  there  have  been  none,  for  these  twelve  hundred 
years  past,  that  have  been  more  grievously  punished,  or  that  have 
more  cheerfully  and  steadfastly  undergone,  and  even  offered  them- 
selves to,  the  most  cruel  sorts  of  punishment,  than  these  people.” 
The  Anabaptists  are  a pernicious  sect,  of  which  kind  the  Wal- 
densian  brethren  seem  also  to  have  been. — Nor  is  this  heresy  a 
modern  thing;  for  it  existed  in  the  time  of  Austin.”  In  Rees’ 
Reply  to  Walker f p.  220  ; and  apud  Schyn  Hist.  Mennonit.  p.  135. 

Dr.  Mosheim.  “ The  true  origin  of  that  sect,  which  acquired 
the  denomination  of  Anabaptists,  by  their  administering  anew  the 
rite  of  baptism,  to  those  who  came  over  to  their  communion,  and 
derived  that  of  Mennonites,  from  the  famous  man,  to  whom  they 
owe  the  greatest  part  of  their  present  felicity,  is  hid  in  the  remotest 
depths  of  antiqtiity,  and  is,  of  consequence,  extremely  difficult  to 
be  ascertained.”  Eccles.  Hist.  Vol.  iv.  p.  439. 

See  also  Danvers  on  Baptism,  Rees’  Reply  to  Walker,  and 
Robinson’s  History  and  Researches. 

Concerning  Dr.  Gill’s  supposed  concession,  that  he  was  not  able 
to  find  any  instance  of  an  opposer  of  infant  baptism,  from  the 
fourth  to  the  eleventh  century.  See  Dr.  Baldwin’s  Series  of 
Letters  to  Dr.  Worcester,  Let.  xxiv.  p.  232. 

t Epistle  to  the  churches  of  Galatia,  Chap.  iii.  ver.  27* 


62 


Erasmus.  “Paul  does  not  seem”  (in  Rom.  v.  14.) 
“ to  treat  about  * infants. — It  was  not  yet  the  custom  Jor 
infants  to  be  baptized.''^* 

Luther.  “It  cannot  be  proved  by  the  sacred  scrip- 
ture, that  infant  baptism  was  instituted  by  Christ,  or 
begun  by  the  first  Christians  after  the  apostles. ’’f 
M.  Xa  RoquE.  “The  primitive  church  did  not 
l3aptize  infants  ; and  the  learned  Grotius  proves  it,  in 
his  annotations  on  the  gospel. 

Lunovicus  VivEs.  “ No  one,  in  former  times,  was 
admitted  to  the  sacred  baptistery,  except  he  was  of  age, 
understood  what  the  mystical  water  meant,  desired  to 
be  washed  in  it,  and  expressed  tliat  desire  more  than 
once.  ”11 

Mr.  Chambers.  “It  appears  that  in  the  primitive 
times,  none  were  baptized  but  adults.”^ 

Bp.  Barlow.  “I  do  believe  and  know,  that  there 
is  neither  precept  nor  example  in  scripture,  for  Pcedo- 
baptism,  nor  any  just  evidence  for  it,  for  about  two  hun- 
dred years  after  Christ.”lf 

Salmasius  and  Suicerus.  “In  the  tw'o  first  cen- 
turies, no  one  was  baptized,  except,  being  instnicted  in 
the  faith,  and  acquainted  with  the  doctrine  of  Christ,  he 
tvas  able  to  profess  himself  a believer ; because  of  those 
words.  He  that  believeth^  and  is  baptized.'*'*^* 

M.  Forme  y.  “They  baptized,  from  this  time”  (the 
latter  end  of  the  second  century,)  “ infants,  as  well  as 

adults.”tt 

CuRCELLoeus.  “ The  baptism  of  infants,  in  the  two 
first  centuries  after  Christ,  xvas  altogether  unknown  ; but 
in  the  third  and  fourth,  was  allotvcd  by  some  few'.  In  the 

* Annotat.  ad  Rom.  v.  14. 

f In  A.  R’s.  Vanity  of  Infant  Baptism,  Part.  ii.  p.  8. 

X In  Stennett’s  Answer  to  Russen,  p.  188. 

II  Annotat.  in  Aug.  de  Civ.  Dei,  L.  i.  C.  xxxvii. 

§ Cyc/operdia,  Art.  Baptism.  ^ Letter  to  Mr.  J.  Tombs, 

**  Epist.adJustiim  Pacium.Tliesaur.  Eccles.  sub.  voce  Xvr»^(f, 
Tom.  ii.  p.  1 13G. 

tt  Abridg.  Eccles,  Hist,  Vol.  i.  p.  33-. 


63 


fifth  and  following  ages,  it  was  generally  received. — The 
custom  of  baptizing  infants  did  not  begin  before  the 
third  age  after  Christ  was  born.  In  the  former  a^es^  no 
trace  of  it  appears, — and  it  was  introduced  without  the 
command  of  Christ.”* 

Rigaltius.  “ In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  w’e  read, 
that  both  men  and  women  were  baptized,  when  they  be- 
lieved the  gospel  preached  by  Philip;  without  any  men- 
tion being  made  of  infants.  From  the  apostolic  a^e,  there- 
fore, to  the  time  of  Tertullian,  the  matter  is  doubtful.'''' \ 
Venema.  “ Tertullian  has  no  where  mentioned  Pce- 
dobaptism  among  the  traditions  of  the  church,  nor  even 
among  the  customs  of  the  church,  that  were  publicly 
received,  and  usually  observed ; nay,  he  plainly  inti- 
mates that,  in  his  time,  it  was  yet  a doubtful  affair. — 
Nothing  can  be  affirmed  with  certainty,  concerning  the 
custom  of  the  church  before  Tertullian ; seeing  there  is 
not  any  where,  in  more  ancient  writers,  that  I know  of, 
undoubted  mention  of  infant  baptism.  Justin  Martyr,  in 
his  second  apology,  when  describing  baptism,  mentions 
only  that  of  adults. — I conclude,  therefore,  that  Poedo- 
baptism,  cannot  be  certainly  proved  to  have  been  prac- 
tised before  the  times  of  Tertullian ; and  that  there  were 
persons  in  his  age,  who  desired  their  infants  might  be 
baptized,  especially,  when  they  were  afraid  of  their 
dying  without  baptism ; which  opinion  Tertullian  oppos- 
ed, and  by  so  doing,  he  intimates,  that  Pcedobaptism 
began  to  prevail.  These  are  the  things  that  may  be  af- 
firmed, with  apparent  certainty,  concerning  the  antiq- 
uity of  infant  baptism,  after  the  times  of  the  apostles ; 
for  more  are  maintained  without  solid  foundation.'''' \ 
Grotius.  “ It  seems  to  me  that  the  baptism  of 
infants  was,  of  old,  much  more  frequently  practised  in 
Africa,  than  in  Asia,  or  other  parts  of  the  world  ; and 

* Institut.  Relig.  Christ.  L.  i.  C.  xii.  Dissert.  Secund.  de  Pecc, 
Orig.  § 56. 

t In  Stennet’s  Answer  to  Russen,  p.  74. 

X Hist.  Eedes.  Tom.  iii.  Seoul,  ii.  § 108,  109. 


64 


with  a certain  opinion  of  the  greater  necessity  of  it.  F or 
you  will  not  find,  in  any  of  the  councils,  a more  ancient 
mention  of  this  custom,  than  in  the  council  of  Car- 
thage.”* 

Episcopius.  “ Pcedobaptism  was  not  accounted  a 
necessary  rite,  till  it  was  determined  so  to  be,  in  the 
Milevitan  council,  held  in  the  year  four  hundred  and 
eighteen.”f 

Dr.  Doddridge.  “It  is  indeed  surprising,  that 
nothing  more  express  is  to  be  met  with  in  antiquity  upon 
this  subject. 

Several  well  authenticated  instances  of  Christians,  em- 
inent in  the  ehurch,  who,  though  born  of  Christian  par- 
ents, were  not  baptized,  but  on  their  own  profession, 
prove,  that,  even  in  the  third  and  fourth  centuries,  infant 
baptism  was  not  the  universal  practice  of  the  church. 

Bp.  Taylor.  “There  is  no  pretence  of  tradition, 
that  the  church,  in  all  ages,  did  baptize  all  the  infants 
of  Christian  parents.  It  is  more  certain,  that  they  did 
not  do  it  always,  than  that  they  did  it,  in  the  first  age. 
St.  Ambrose,  St.  Hierom  and  St.  Austin,  \vere  born  of 
Christian  ptirents,  and  yet  not  baptized,  until  the  full  age 
of  a man  and  more.”|| 

Daille.  “In  ancient  times,  they  often  deferred  the 
baptizing  both  of  infants  and  of  other  people,  as  appears 
b5'  the  history  of  the  emixrors,  Constantine  the  Great, 
of  Constiintius,  of  Theodosius,  of  Valentinian,  and  of 
Gratian,  in  St.  Ambrose ; and  also  by  die  orations  and 
homilies  of  Gregory  Nazianzen,  and  of  St.  Basil,  upon 
this  subject.’’^ 

Gregory  Nazianzen  was  born  of  Christian  parents,  in 
the  year  three  hundred  and  eighteen,  and  was  not  bap- 
tized, till  between  twenty  and  thirty  years  of  age.lf 

• Annotat.  in  Matt.  xix.  14.*  f Tn.stitut.Theolog.  L.  iv.  C.  xiv. 

Lectures,  p.  5i-2.  ||  Lihertij  of  Prophecying,  S«M:t.  v.  p.  84. 

§ Right  Use  of  the  Fathers,  B.  ii.  C.  vi.  p.  14y. 

^ SeeGROTii  Annotat.  in  Matt,  xiv,  14  ; Du  Pin’s  Eccles, 
Cent.  iv.  p.  159  \ Gen.  Biog.  Diet,  A.rt,  Greg,  ^az. 


65 


Chrj'sostom  was  born  of  Christian  parents,  in  the  year 
three  hundred  and  fifty-four,  and  was  not  baptized,  till 
about  twenty-one  years  of  age.* 

Augustine,  bishop  of  Hippo,  commonly  called  Austin, 
was  bom  the  same  year  with  Chrysostom.  His  mother 
Monica  was  a Christian,  at  tlie  time  of  his  birth,  and  or- 
dered those  ceremonies,  which  it  was  then  customary 
to  perform  on  the  children  of  Christians,  f At  one  time, 
in  youth,  he  was  seized  with  a dangerous  illness,  and 
earnestly  desired  to  be  baptized.  His  mother  was 
hastening  to  comply,  when  he  recovered,  and  his  baptism 
was  deferred.  Nor,  according  to  his  own  account,  did 
he  receive  baptism,  until  he  professed  the  Christian  re- 
ligion, at  the  age  of  thirty  years,  t Believing  that  he 

had  suffered  from  this  delay,  he  became  “ afterwards  a 
strenuous  asserter  of  the  expediency  of  more  early  bap- 
tism.”§ 

It  has  been  strongly  urged,  in  support  of  the  antiquity 
of  infant  baptism,  that,  in  the  Pelagian  controversy,  Aus- 
tin adduces  this  practice,  in  proof  of  the  doctrine  of  orig- 
inal sin : “ Infant  baptism  the  whole  church  practises ; 
it  was  not  instituted  by  councils,  but  was  ever  in  use.”[j 
Did  Austin  mean,  that  infant  baptism  was  the  univer- 
sal practice  of  the  church  ? The  indisputable  facts,  that  he 
himself,  though  born  of  a Christian  parent,  was  not  bap- 
tized in  iidancy,  and  that  he  found  it  necessary,  through 
the  whole  of  his  life,  strongly  to  oppose  the  prevailing, 
and,  as  he  deemed  it,  criminal  delay  of  this  ordinance, 
render  this  interpretation  entirely  inadmissible. 

* See  Grotii  Annotat.  in  Matt.  xix.  14 ; Du  Pin’s  Eccks.  Hist. 
Cent.  5.  p.  6,  7. 

•f  “ 1 was  then  signed  with  the  sign  of  his”  (Christ’s)  “ cross, 
and  was  seasoned  with  his  salt,  so  soon  as  I can3e  out  of  mv  moth- 
er’s womb,  who  greatly  trusted  in  thee.”  L'ov/essuyns,  Book  i.  C. 
xi  p.  17. 

X See  “ Augustine's  Confessions  Abridged  *'  in  Milner’s  Hist, 
of  the  Church,  Vol.  ii.  Cent.  v.  C.  ii. 

' .§  Milner’s  Hist,  of  the  Church,  Vol.  ii.  p.  302.  Note. 

(1  In  Dr.  Worcester’s  Letters,  Let.  xxi. 

I 


% 


66 


We  must  conclude,  that  infant  baptism,  though  not  yet 
considered  a necessary  duty,  was,  in  the  time  of  Aus- 
tin, generally  tolerated,  nor  ever  refused  to  those  par- 
ents, who  desired  it  for  their  children.  Further  than 
this,  it  is  not  possible  to  stretch  the  meaning  of  Austin, 
without  making  him  contradict  his  own  confessions  and 
his  own  conduct. 

That  Austin  should  suppose  this  practice  to  have 
l^een  “ever  in  use,”  is  not  strange,  when  we  consider, 
that,  in  the  words  of  Hospinianus,  “ in  the  time  of  Aus- 
tin, it  was  commonly  believed,  that  whatever  was  re- 
ceived by  the  church,  as  a devotional  custom,  proceeded 
from  apostolical  tradition,  and  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.”* 

It  may  still  be  urged,  that,  though  there  be  no  evidence 
of  infant  baptism,  in  the  t^vo  first  centuries,  yet  the  prev- 
alence of  this  practice  in  Africa,  during  the  third  cen- 
turj’’,  as  appears  from  the  proceedings  of  the  council  of 
Carthage,  in  the  year  two  hundred  and  fifty-six,  and  its 
general  prevalence  through  the  whole  of  the  Christian 
world,  during  the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries,  as  appears 
from  the  testimonies,  furnished  by  the  Pelagian  contro- 
-eersy,  afford  sufficient  proof,  that  it  must  have  been  of 
apostolic  origin  ; and  that  this  proof  is  greatly  strength- 
ened, by  the  consideration,  that,  if  not  apostolic,  it  could 
not  have  been  introduced,  without  violent  opposition. 

To  this,  the  case  of  infant  communion  furnishes  a 
full  reply.  The  same  evidence  can  be  adduced,  in  fa- 
vour of  the  antiquity  of  infant  communion,  as  of  infant 
baptism.  And  in  the  article  of  opposition,  infant  com- 
munion has  the  advantage  of  its  sister  practice.  For 
while  there  appears  to  liave  been  some  opposition  to 
the  introduction  of  infant  baptism,  by  Tcrtullian,  Greg- 
ory Nazianzen  and  others,  nothing  of  tlie  kind  apix;ars, 
in  tlie  case  of  infant  commuiuon. 

As  these  points,  if  esUiblished,  must,  in  the  minds  of 
those  who  reject  infant  communion,  completely  invali- 


♦ lUst.  Sacram,  L.  ii.  p.  41. 


67 


date  the  argument  from  antiquity,  in  favour  of  infant 
baptism,  and  as  these  points  must  be  established  by  tes- 
timony, indeiiendently  of  argumentation,  permit  me  to 
introduce  the  following  quotations. 

Salmasius  and  Suicerus.  “ Because  tlie  eucharist 
was  given  to  adult  catechumens,  when  they  were  wash- 
ed with  holy  baptism,  without  any  space  of  time  inter- 
vening, this  also  was  done  to  infants,  after  Pcedobaptism 
%vas  introduced^* 

BtfDDoeus.  “It  is  manifest,  that,  in  the  ancient 
church,  it  was  usual  to  give  the  eucharist  to  infants, 
which  custom  arose  about  the  third  century,  and  con- 
tinued in  the  western  church,  to  the  beginning  of  the 
twelfth  century,  as  Quenstedius  shows.  This  custom 
seems  to  have  prevailed,  first  in  the  African  church, 
and  to  have  been  propagated  thence  to  other  churches 
of  the  west.  Certainly,  we  no  where  find  it  more  fre- 
quently mentioned,  than  in  tlie  writings  of  Cyprian,  of 
Austin,  and  of  Paulinus.  The  error  seems  to  have 
arisen,  from  a false  opinion  concerning  the  absolute  ne- 
cessity of  the  eucharist ; and  it  has  been  observed  by 
learned  men,  that  this  arose  from  the  words  of  Christ, 
John  vi.  53,  not  well  understood. 

Hospinianus.  “ The  Lord’s  supper  was  given  to 
the  infants  of  believers,  in  the  time  of  Pope  Innocent 
the  First,  of  Cyprian,  and  of  Austin ; as  well  in  Eu- 
rope, as  in  Asia  and  Africa,  and  that  as  necessary  to 
salvation. — Jerom,  Austin  and  other  fathers  testify, 
that  they  who  were  baptized,  not  only  adults,  but  also 
infants,  without  any  delay,  received  the  Lord’s  supper 
in  both  kinds.”t 

Chillingworth.  “ St.  Augustine,  I am  sure,  held 
the  communicating  of  infants,  as  much  apostolic  tradi- 
tion, as  the  baptizing  of  them. — The  eucharist’s  neces- 
sity for  infants — was  taught  by  the  consent  of  the  em- 

* Thesaur.  Eccles,  sub  voce 
•f  Tlieolog.  Dogmat.  L.  v.  C.  i.  § 19. 
t Hist.  Sacrum.  L.  ii.  C*  ii<  p.  51. 


68 


inent  fathers  of  some  ages,  without  any  opposition,  from 
any  of  their  contemporaries  ; and  was  delivered  by  them, 
not  as  doctors,  but  as  witnesses ; not  as  their  opinion, 
but  as  apostolic  tradition.”* 

Dr.  Priestley.  “It  is  remarkable,  that,  in  all 
Christian  antiquity,  we  always  find,  that  communion  in 
the  Lord’s  supper  immediately  followed  baptism.  And 
no  such  thing  occurs,  as  that  of  any  person  having  a right 
to  one  of  these  ordinances,  and  not  to  the  other.”f 
Venema.  “In  the  ancient  church,  those  two  sacra- 
ments” (baptism  and  the  Lord’s  supper)  “ in  respect 
of  the  subjects,  were  never  separated,  the  one  from  the 
other. — In  the  thirteenth  century,  baptized  infants  ceas- 
ed to  be  admitted  to  the  eucharist,  because  it  began  to 
be  administered  under  one  kind.”f 

Dr.  Wall.  “ — That  the  Roman  church,  about  the 
year  one  ihousand,  entertaining  the  doctrine  of  transub- 
stantiation,  let  fall  the  custom  of  giving  the  holy  elements 
to  infants ; and  the  other  western  churches,  mostly  fol- 
lowing their  example,  did  the  like,  upon  the  same  ac» 
count;  but  that  the  Greeks,  not  having  the  same  doc- 
trine, continued,  and  do  still  continue,  the  custom  of 
communicating  infants.” II 

Let  me  conclude  this  part  of  the  discourse,  by  inquir- 
ing, Why  do  not  the  advocates  of  infant  baptism,  be- 
come advocates  of  infant  communion? 

Is  the  scripture  silent  concerning  the  latter  ordinance  ? 
It  is  equally  silent  concerning  the  former.  Are  infants 
incapable  of  remembering  Christ,  of  examining  tlicm- 
bclves,  and  of  discerning  the  Lord’s  body,  which  arc  re- 
quired of  those  who  receive  the  supper?  They  are 
equally  incapable  of  repenting  and  believing,  which  are 
required  of  those  who  receive  baptism.  Every  argument 

Relig,  of  Protest.  Answer  to  Pref.  § 10,  and  Chap.  iii.  § 44, 
f Address  on  giving  the  Lord's  supper  to  Children,  p.  10. 

J Hist.  Eccles.  Secul.  ii.  § 100;  Secul.  xiii.  § l64. 

11  Hist,  of  Inf.  Bap.  p.  517» 


60 


which  is  brought  to  prove,  that  the  requirement  to  re- 
pent and  believe  does  not  exclude  infants  from  the  one 
ordinance,  will  equally  prove,  that  the  requirement  to 
examine  one’s  self  and  discern  the  Lord’s  body  does  not 
exclude  them  from  the  otlier  ordinance. 

Every  argument  also,  which  is  urged  in  support  of 
the  one  ordinance,  may  be  urged,  with  equal  plausibil- 
ity, in  support  of  the  other. 

Ought  infants  to  be  baptized,  because,  under  a for- 
mer dispensation,  they  were  circumcised  ? So  also,  be- 
cause, under  a former  dispensation,  they  partook  of  the 
passover,  they  ought  now  to  be  admitted  to  communion. 
Ought  they  to  be  baptized,  because  they  are  connected 
with  their  parents,  in  covenant  with  God  ? For  the  same 
reason,  they  ought,  wdth  their  parents,  to  be  admitted  to 
communion.  Ought  they  to  be  baptized,  because  they 
are  members  of  the  visible  church  ? For  the  same  rea- 
son, they  ought  to  be  admitted  to  communion.  Ought 
they  to  be  baptized,  because  Christ  commanded  little 
children  to  be  brought  to  him,  and  declared,  that  of  such 
is  the  kingdom  of  heaven  ? For  the  same  reason,  they 
ought  to  be  admitted  to  communion.  Ought  they  to  be 
baptized,  because  they  are  not  unclean,  but  holy?  For 
the  same  reason,  they  ought  to  be  admitted  to  commu- 
nion. Does  it  lessen  the  privileges,  uhich  the  church 
anciently  enjoyed,  to  withhold  baptism  from  infants? 
And  does  it  not  equally  lessen  those  privileges,  to  de- 
bar infants  from  communion  ? Is  it  harsh  and  injurious 
to  exclude  infants  from  baptism  ? And  is  it  not  equally 
harsh  and  injurious  to  exclude  them  from  communion  ? 

Accordingly,  Dr.  Williams,  the  opponent  of  Mr. 
Booth,  inquires,  “ Are  not  the  same  reasons,  which  are 
brought  for  infant  baptism,  in  like  manner,  applicable 
to  infant  communion?  And  will  not  the  objections 
against  the  latter,  admit  of  the  same  answer,  as  those 
against  the  former?”* 

*Notes  on  Mr,  Morrice’s  Social  Relig.  p.  78. 


70 


The  reasons  stated  in  both  parts  of  this  discourse, 
lead  us  to  the  conclusion,  that  the  immersion  of  a profess- 
ing believer y into  the  name  of  the  Father^  and  of  the  Son^ 
and  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  is  the  only  Christian  baptism. 

“ He  that  believeth  and  is  baptized,  shall  be  saved ; 
but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned.”*  To  be- 
lieve in  Christ  is  necessary  to  salvation ; and  to  be  bap- 
tized is  the  instituted  method  of  professing  our  belief. 
It  is,  therefore,  not  only  an  infinitely  important  ques- 
tion to  all  men,  whether  they  believe  in  Christ ; but  it  is 
also  a very  important  question  to  all  Christians,  whether 
they  have  been  baptized. 

If  you  love  Christ,  you  cannot  consider  this  question 
unimportant.  You  will  be  desirous  of  discovering  tlie 
will  of  him  whom  you  love,  and  of  testifying  your  love, 
be  joyfully  obeying.  “ If  ye  love  mef  said  Jesus,  “ keep 
my  co7n7nandments.^^\  “ Ye  are  my  friends,  if  ye  do  wlTat- 
soever  I command  you.’‘^\ 

If,  when  your  mind  adverts  to  tliis  question,  you  fear 
the  consequences  of  an  examination,  and  dread  tliose 
sacrifices,  which  a discovery  that  you  have  been  mis- 
taken, may  enforce  on  your  conscience  ; or  if  you  feel  the 
influence  of  long  established  sentiments,  or  imagine, 
that  tlK;  subject  is  too  dark  and  intricate  for  your  inves- 
tigation ; look  to  tlie  Son  of  God,  who  hesitated  not  to 
make  the  greatest  sacrifices,  and  to  endure  the  most 
painful  sufferings  for  you  ; and  look  up  to  the  Father  of 
lights,  to  send  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  the  promise 
of  his  Son,  to  guide  you  into  all  tlie  trutli. 

Especially,  my  brethren,  diligently  use  the  means  of 
discovering  the  truth.  Put  yourselves  in  the  way  of  evi- 
dence. Indulge  free  examination.  Though  the  sun  shines 
with  perfect  clearness,  you  will  never  see  that  light  wliich 
otlKrs  enjoy,  if  you  confine  yourselves  in  a cavern, 
w'hich  the  beams  of  the  sun  cannot  jienetrate.  Be  assur- 
cd,  that  there  is  sufficient  evidence  on  this  subject,  if  you 

* Mark  xvi.  16,  f John  xiv.  15.  $ John  xv.  14. 


71 


seek  to  discover  it.  But  if  your  love  for  truth  i^  not 
sufficiently  strong  to  make  you  willing  to  seek  and  strive 
for  the  discovery  of  evidence,  God  will  probably  leave 
you  to  be  contented  with  error. 

In  order,  therefore,  to  stimulate  your  minds  to  candid 
and  energetic  research,  prize  truth  above  all  other  things. 
Be  impressed  with  the  conviction,  that  nothing  can  com- 
pensate you,  for  the  loss  of  truth.  “ She  is  more  precious 
than  rubies,  and  all  the  things  thou  canst  desire,  are  not 
to  be  compared  unto  her.”*  She  will  keep  you  in  the 
right  way,  the  way  of  duty,  of  usefulness,  of  happiness. 
She  will  lead  you  to  heaven.  Seek  her,  therefore,  as 
silver,  and  search  for  her,  as  for  liid  treasures. 

Finally,  If  any  man  desire  to  do  the  will  of  God^  “ he 
shall  know  of  the  doctrine ^ whether  it  he  of 

^ ProT.  iii.  15.  f John  vii.  17. 


FINIS. 


4,1  « ».  •■  . V5^\VV^^y ' > cA'  ’S‘..i‘^>  r.’p.'flf  'Jw  . 

' . - ■ ’ « - . ■.•ili'’!  « . _ j»».. 


-,  V-  --  ...I-Ti/M'l*  -*#• 


,»'»•*  T ; T!^  , . 1^.;}!  - ■ • ■-  " '.V  ' ■ ' • 


'O'  •' "t/ 


r,  T «T^ 


''■  ailii/?-- 

' a'.’  '-jk  ' •.  11-''.  / >-J»>riij2i  A 


\ 


'4-  nv  •• 

I .'  ^ ^ ‘«®;-  V ' ' 

...  i;  ■ 

<» 


Mu: 


■ I S«‘.  . *‘^*'  4*!^:,  , 


■■'t;  ri,*’^.*  n;}.  ^ 4 


M)(U.  * Vv^  '••?•*  ■ 

ty . -'T^ 


«’’•  ■•-§-.  ~ * 

••  •'■■■:^'r«  'n'rWv..  - ,-  11,  '■  I 

....  ■ '^y  ^y^-.  t .T--3 

• .y  'I'A’  ... 


'.  J 

* I 


■ u ' 


